Should ICOs be regulated

[robro]

Considering the high level of scam associated with ICOs presently, many investors are at risk of loosing their investments. Bounty hunters like us are not spared as we may be rendering free services to some scammers and also risking our personal data.

I suppose a regulatory body be set up to audit the ICO process and the  founders, and if anything goes wrong or should the project fail, they will be liable. This will reduce drastically investors risk and also keep scammers away. What do you think?

Check this out - the journey to a regulated ICO: https://medium.com/elrondnetwork/becoming-a-regulated-ico-ef8f03bd39f5

[Terrmit]

As scammers have cheated many investors over the past one year, so some type of regulation is necessary. It would increase the investors confidence on ICOs.

Yes this is why i.agree with you that ICO should be regulated. For now, we can clearly see through bounties altcoins that ICO projects nowadays run by copper member newbies. This means that no longer would like to hold a project because the account is much more precious than running the project. Thus, if a high rank account would make a mistak promoting a scam project.then definitely the account will be tagged with negative trust to which it will not be useful anymore in joining signature bounty campaign.

Is it possible to blame the high rank that he took part in a bad project? After all, no one really knows how good these projects are. How much would we not check them, what work would have done. There is always a chance that the project will become a scam. And what do we constantly need to fear paint?

[Chika08]

I spoke about this before and I think it should be regulated due to the high rates of scam project and as well as useless projects that will add little or no value to the investors. With regulations, many of this projects can be purged

[babicena14]

You are right and this issue has been discussed many times, including at the forum. ICO regulation is a very important step to ensure the safety of investors and punish fraudsters, which are now very much in the cryptocurrency environment. But for several years no significant steps have been taken to solve this problem.

[Dpat]

ICO should be regulated but the Govt. of all economy must accept the cryptocurrency first. If, every county will be in favour of the digital currency then it is possible that a statutory body will be formed for the regulation of the ICOs.

[BCTS]

ICO regulation has been a very hot topic for a long time, but it looks like the end of the ICO came before we see any regulation. The ICO was replaced by the IEO and the exchange began to act as a guarantor of security and be responsible for the quality of the project. Now the relevance of the ICO is under a big question.

[baigreen]

ICO regulation has been a very hot topic for a long time, but it looks like the end of the ICO came before we see any regulation. The ICO was replaced by the IEO and the exchange began to act as a guarantor of security and be responsible for the quality of the project. Now the relevance of the ICO is under a big question.

No one and no one can guarantee us success. The fact is that let's say it’s like a project’s action. They give us security. And who can guarantee us investors or hunters that this project will develop everything that he says. Yes, not who. And if the project closes your money will also be lost. So the name and guarantors will not change anything.

[SRKNGL]

Icos is coming to an end. The time to collect money from free should end. Now, for better quality projects, big companies need to enter the market.

[adekogbe]

Regulation of icos is definitely a very good move in a cryptocurrency space this is because the major problem out there is the case of different projects scamming investors of their money but recently the initial exchange offerings have shown that when due diligence is done and a project can be trusted of its validity and also its team verified then it can have a good chance of making very good return on investment for investors especially in exchanges.
Presently the exchanges hosting initial exchange offerings do the due diligence for investors but in a situation where by regulation is done then project do not necessarily need to have initial exchange offering to get there fundraising goal.

[julius caesar]

Considering the high level of scam associated with ICOs presently, many investors are at risk of loosing their investments. Bounty hunters like us are not spared as we may be rendering free services to some scammers and also risking our personal data.

I suppose a regulatory body be set up to audit the ICO process and the  founders, and if anything goes wrong or should the project fail, they will be liable. This will reduce drastically investors risk and also keep scammers away. What do you think?

To the best of my idea and knowledge about cryptocurrency, creating a mass regulation has its limits, and it can just incur a lot of boundaries that people around the cryptospace might not want. But if we are talking here just about the ICOs in the market, proper verification of the team, and proper compliance is enough.

[UniversityCoin]

As scammers have cheated many investors over the past one year, so some type of regulation is necessary. It would increase the investors confidence on ICOs.

So come up with regulation already. Than you do not like IEO, which hold large exchanges and thus act as a regulator. They check projects before listing and guarantee their investors safe investment.

[daporivera]

in my opinion, i feel there is  a serious need for the regulation of ICOs. The level at which people are been scammed is alarming, day in day out...scam projects are launched. majority of people fall victims, investors are scarred of investing as some of them are still unable to recover from the loss incurred in previous projects they were scammed. 

[guidewein]

Taking into consideration the big equivalent of bunco related with ICOs by and by, various investors are at danger of loosing their assets. Charity stalkers similar us are not spared as we ballplayer be translation for free utility to any scammers and furthermore risking our individual information.I surmise a restrictive item be fix up to scrutinize the ICO mechanism and the originator, and whether anything goes erroneous or should the propose betray, they desire be apt. This desire decrease drastically investors danger and furthermore hold scammers out. What achieve you anticipate?

[andor.gellenhidi]

I think that smart contracts should control the flow of money. Because it is they who today must learn to do this. People are always selfish, this is our sin. Machines do not know such intent and do not yet know what it is.

[alisafidel58]

It should have been regulated from the very start. ICO is just a honey pot for scammers. Even up to this point there are still ICO that is coming out in the market that is not regulated and just waiting for an investor to be victimized.

[Hiralbaria97]

Yes. It should.The interesting thing about ICOs is that all business is conducted electronically on global blockchain networks, so it is very easy for companies to locate themselves where the regulation is most appropriate.

[CryptoCoinArbitrage]

They should, but it is very difficult to be regulated globally.  Waiting for some kind of solution the ICO fund raising has collapsed. IEOs are the new trend for crowdfunding in 2019.

[Kasabus]

They should, but it is very difficult to be regulated globally.  Waiting for some kind of solution the ICO fund raising has collapsed. IEOs are the new trend for crowdfunding in 2019.

It collapse but it did not mean is already gone, ICO is still here even IEO is the new popular way of raising funds now.
Government regulation will not take effect instantly, they have to study the crypto market yet, and it take time, so we just have to wait now.
With lots of scammers in crypto now, that will be their basis of regulating this market.

[alonelyorange]

After failed with many ICO with listed lower price on exchange market I think ICO need regulated where many ICO have success pass hard cap but still always lower price than ICO after listing on exchange market.

[fosco333]

Considering the high level of scam associated with ICOs presently, many investors are at risk of loosing their investments. Bounty hunters like us are not spared as we may be rendering free services to some scammers and also risking our personal data.

I suppose a regulatory body be set up to audit the ICO process and the  founders, and if anything goes wrong or should the project fail, they will be liable. This will reduce drastically investors risk and also keep scammers away. What do you think?

I think IEO is same as ICO being regulated by other parties, like exchanges.
If the regulation will create some advantages for ICO investors, then it is ok to be regulated.
We all want to reduce the chance for investing in fraud projects, so we won't loss more money anymore.