Do advisors held accountable when the project turned out to be scam?

[Crypto-DesignService]

I've noticed everytime there is a new ICO, there are sometimes more than 2 advisors on it as part of the team which is to educate/advise the creator of project.

Take John McAfee for example, he can be hired as an advisor.

There are questions that raised on my mind
1. Will they be held accountable if the said project turned out to be scam?
2. Do they know the people that they advise?
3. Do they know what is happening on it's development phase/headquarter?
4. Like campaign managers accountability, if they feel that the project will likely turn out to be scam and still agreed with the deal, will they be punish about it as being part of a scam project?

Is there a chance John McAffee(gave him as an example because he's the famous advisor I know but not a good one) can be held accountable with these things?

Please move this topic on Reputation from lower left.

Moved.

^{Is this the right section to ask this things?}

[1714817336]

1714817336

[1714817336]

1714817336

[1714817336]

1714817336

[Onuohakk]

This is a very tricky situation when one advice an individual on the potential of an ico and get the individual to invest but things turns out bad.
I would always suggest that when advising someone on things beyond your control you put in a disclaimer so in case things does not go as planned

[khaled0111]

Usually SCAM projects have fake team members, you should have solid proofs that he really worked with them.
A known advisor will never accept to detroy his reputation by working with scammers.

An adviser or advisor is normally a person with more and deeper knowledge in a specific area and usually also includes persons with cross-functional and multidisciplinary expertise. An adviser's role is that of a mentor or guide and differs categorically from that of a task-specific consultant. An adviser is typically part of the leadership, whereas consultants fulfill functional roles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adviser
According to this definition, an advisor should know all other team members and all details concerning the project. He would definitely know whether the project is a scam or not and accepting to work with scammers is accepting to be part of the crime.

[greenlanternlight01]

Usually SCAM projects have fake team members, you should have solid proofs that he really worked with them.
A known advisor will never accept to detroy his reputation by working with scammers.

An adviser or advisor is normally a person with more and deeper knowledge in a specific area and usually also includes persons with cross-functional and multidisciplinary expertise. An adviser's role is that of a mentor or guide and differs categorically from that of a task-specific consultant. An adviser is typically part of the leadership, whereas consultants fulfill functional roles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adviser
According to this definition, an advisor should know all other team members and all details concerning the project. He would definitely know whether the project is a scam or not and accepting to work with scammers is accepting to be part of the crime.

I totally get whet you are saying and when you accept to advise for a project you should be 100% sure that it's legit. But there is also the chance that the adviser get scammed as well. Perhaps in the paper the project looks wonderful and the core team go all the length to make it work, does all the roadshows and all the research and posting. And when the sale is over the team goes dark and no one hears from them, not even the advisor. With all that I've seen in this market I would think this is a possibility as well

[bernardos]

I remember reading on Mcaffee's twitter that he is no longer allowed to give advice and open support for ICO's. I think SEC opened an investigation on him about that. If an adviser is to be punished somebody has to prove that he was part of the scam and maybe he didnt know a thing about it. And even the advisers can get scammed by that projects team.

[The Cryptovator]

Please move this topic on Reputation from lower left.

Don't surprise if you see dead people's on advisor.

1. Will they be held accountable if the said project turned out to be scam?

Yes.¹

 

2. Do they know the people that they advise?

Should be.²

3. Do they know what is happening on it's development phase/headquarter?

Should be ³

4. Like campaign managers accountability, if they feel that the project will likely turn out to be scam and still agreed with the deal, will they be punish about it as being part of a scam project?

Should be punish.⁴


1. They should be accountable if project trun into scam but unfortunately who will punish them? Still there is no regulation for ICO's.

2. Advisor should know every team members very well. Even they should sign contract with KYC. But unfortunately 90% ICO's are using fake team so who will verified them. Even team not aware who is on the picture. Mostly time they excuse that team not aware about picture and developer did mistake.

3. Obviously advisor should know everything what's going on headquarters or development phase. Otherwise how they will advise ?

4. Refer to the answere number 1. We can (DT) punish bounty managers by red tag but who will find advisors and punish them ?

[r1s2g3]

There are lot of legalities involved here.
1. Nationality of adviser
2. Countries in which ICO is selling token.

SEC can take notice if it fall in their judristriction.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/dj-khaled-cryptocurrency-dispute-sec-761694/

[joniboini]

I personally think they have some degree of accountability, but it's different for each case. I mean, you should treat them differently when they expose that the team is trying to exit scam for example. But we should sue them when they continue to advertise a known scam or doing little to nothing when there are some red flags being raised by the community.

Anyway, this is going to be a long debate and should take months or years before it's finally legalized.

[madnessteat]

I think that it is very difficult to prove the adviser's guilt. He does not manage the project and does not make important decisions, the team and CEO are responsible for this. The adviser himself may not know that the project will be a fraud.

[Crypto-DesignService]

I think that it is very difficult to prove the adviser's guilt. He does not manage the project and does not make important decisions, the team and CEO are responsible for this. The adviser himself may not know that the project will be a fraud.

But as one of the member of the team, isn't that technically make them part of the project?

Once a well-known name showed up on that list there is a comfort for investors/contributor that there's a least chance it will turn into scam. A well known advisor can be a tool to show that the project is reliable.

[scambust]

Of course they are. They may not be directly responsible for the scam, but they should have done due diligence. Let's just call it reputational damage.

[Crypto-DesignService]

Of course they are. They may not be directly responsible for the scam, but they should have done due diligence. Let's just call it reputational damage.

I see lots of report in regards to scam ICO projects but never encounter someone that advisor of the team member should also get punish just like campaign managers.
Or maybe those advisors are just ghost name, that is why I never see someone reported it?

[Lauda]

Of course they are. They may not be directly responsible for the scam, but they should have done due diligence. Let's just call it reputational damage.

That is wrong.
It really really depends on whether they had any idea that it is/might be a scam. If they didn't, then they are also victims.

[Vod]

Of course they are. They may not be directly responsible for the scam, but they should have done due diligence. Let's just call it reputational damage.

That is wrong.
It really really depends on whether they had any idea that it is/might be a scam. If they didn't, then they are also victims.

I disagree.  A person should do some due diligence before they attach their name to anything.

[marlboroza]

@OP you won't see John McAfee working with project without taking pictures with team members and/or making some videos with them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adviser
According to this definition, an advisor should know all other team members and all details concerning the project. He would definitely know whether the project is a scam or not and accepting to work with scammers is accepting to be part of the crime.

Modern advisors are advising pexels team.

Someone should update wikipedia, it got stuck in stone age.

[Lauda]

Of course they are. They may not be directly responsible for the scam, but they should have done due diligence. Let's just call it reputational damage.

That is wrong.
It really really depends on whether they had any idea that it is/might be a scam. If they didn't, then they are also victims.

I disagree.  A person should do some due diligence before they attach their name to anything.

Why is there this false notion that due dilligence will uncover every single scam that will happen? A CEO of any of those projects could exit scam at any random time for any random reason. How exactly does due dilligence prevent that? Sigh. There is no way to be 100%  certain unless you somehow create a situation where it isn't even a possibility.