Established Institutions will change Cryptos and ICOs Entirely

[tk808]

We're seeing a dynamic shift in how blockchains are going to be adopted and only a small portion of existing crypto's will have any sort of real-adoption, institutions associated with them. Several companies that many of you are familiar with (IBM.. etc) are competing with most start-up ICOs, but on a global scale. There has been a large uptick in the news coming out from these larger corporations, experimenting and potentially creating their own cryptos. It's only going to snowball, due to the power of blockchain as a whole.  

Thus, ICO's or "publicly funded" offerings will die off to an extent in the coming years. There's no great desire for the average crypto investor to risk investing in an unknown crypto, that has little authority/backing by some reputable brand, institution, individual or exchanges themselves. What we are seeing is very well pre-funded projects, with smaller public-offerings (if they choose that route at all).

Coupled with the somewhat dying public ICO scene, there will be something far more punishing occurring in a few months or near the end of this year, and that's regulatory frameworks set forth by the SEC. STO's will be a common occurrence, but the term "accredited investor" will also start taking hold, thus nullifying the meaning of crypto and ICO entirely. Accredited investors (institutional investors) will be driving most of these STO's or IEOs in the future and almost every crypto framework we know of, will be abiding by this design.

[1715386731]

1715386731

[1715386731]

1715386731

[1715386731]

1715386731

[Bitcotalk]

What we are experiencing in the crypto market currently is what I call a shake, and this shake is what is going to separate the good projects from the bad project and I am very sure that at the end of this shake, only few coins would be left in the market because a lot of this coin don't actually have a real life value and have nothing to offer thereby making it a shitcoin or you can call it a shit project, we just hope this shaking happens faster.

[Quintrix]

We are moving to the right direction, we cannot go on like this for years, we cannot let supporters and investors of cryptocurrency to get scammed over and over again, in the next few years we will have a board that can regulate this ICO which will not accept bribe from these scammed ICO.

[auntyjmary]

We are in a season where most ICOs don't meet the expectations of their fundraising hence institutions are even doubtful in organizing their own ICO project. It seems we are in a revolutionary period where people and institutions are gradually shifting from associating themselves with ICOs but rather choosing IEOs or adopting well established cryptocurrencies. It's all good for the world of cryptocurrencies.

[thaliaand]

So true. Established institutions have important roles in implementing blockchain technology including crypto and ICOs. With the involvement of large companies in developing and adopting the latest technology, sometimes there are parties who are "victims" in the context of competition, especially startups. Startups will find it difficult especially if they do ICOs with the presence of established institutions. But on the other hand, a process like this will actually become a benchmark for investors and the public about the feasibility of projects from startups. This will be a real challenge for startups in the blockchain world.

[erikoy]

As users are looking for a secured way in the cryptocurrency system finds this ICO projects has a weak systematic approach which is being abused by somebody especially in scamming. There are many ways on this how to scam using the ICO system so literally users with the adaptation of blockchain looking for a new and has good trust system for cryptocurrency.

[Bttzed03]

It is ironic that a lot of us are now thinking that for cryptocurrency to move forward, we'll need the backing of financial institutions. The same institutions that we're fighting when all this started.

[Herbert2020]

the big companies with big names (like IBM,...) are never going to do an ICO ever. for starters because they want to keep their name big, and ICOs being associated with scams automatically will defeat that. but also the more important reason is because they don't need to!
ICO is a way to raise funds for a project which so far has been useless projects that people want to get paid for and become rich overnight. a big company like IBM doesn't need that kind of money to start a project. and they don't have plans on scamming people so they don't need it at all.

[mrdeposit]

It is not understandable and pleasant to go back to financial institutions if we talk about the advantages of the crypto ecosystem. Going back only will take from us and it is not going to give us anything.

[ujinice]

We are in a season where most ICOs don't meet the expectations of their fundraising hence institutions are even doubtful in organizing their own ICO project. It seems we are in a revolutionary period where people and institutions are gradually shifting from associating themselves with ICOs but rather choosing IEOs or adopting well established cryptocurrencies. It's all good for the world of cryptocurrencies.

IEO is practically no different from ICO, except that the project tokens receive an exclusive right to place on the exchange, they have very similar problems, such as non-quality projects and problems with the SEC. Accumulation of low-quality projects can adversely affect not only the exchanges themselves, but also resume the fall in the capitalization of the cryptomarket.

[rosezionjohn]

Why would these established institutions even enter the ICO, STO, or IEO market when they can just fund their own of just do it thru Venture Capital?

[tk808]

It is ironic that a lot of us are now thinking that for cryptocurrency to move forward, we'll need the backing of financial institutions. The same institutions that we're fighting when all this started.

This is a good remark. Because everything that crypto currently (or has) stood far, is changing. The dynamics of decentralization, privacy and freedom are getting morphed. To add to the OP, this could be analyzed from a perspective of the study of human behavior.. we are drawn to central authorities for order.

There's no doubt crypto is becoming more centralized, both within certain networks and every business surrounding/making up the current/future climates. Investors and enthusiasts are not interested in the inherent philosophy blockchain and Bitcoin where founded on, that's going to be lost, especially if the "proposed bans" on privacy-cryptos actually takes hold in the future. While i respect what some crypto-funded business have done for crypto as a whole (namely Binance), their increasing monopolistic behavior, to maintain relevancy, is somewhat damaging to the inherent representation in the space they're operating within.

The future will be determined not by the average guy, but the guys who hold authority and power, and to use it to promote the environment in-which, again, is steadily being lost to an extent.