Crypto Insurance

[Ucy]

Any solution that prevents scams is welcomed as long as it's viable .

One of my favorite suggestions on how to prevent scams is to slowly release ICO funds in phases to developers and watching them spend the fund transparently.  Once the developers deviate from the Roadmap/whitepaper and standard without sound reasons, the funds are immediately frozen by the community until the developers give satisfactory reasons for the deviation.

[metalglowd]

So if the case is like this, you could say there is no insurance. All of that includes risk. ICO, Trading any funds related to crypto is definitely at risk because our goal is to get profit.

[Mihaylovic]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

it would be good. but i think this kind of things wont work in crypto ecosystem. because any kind of insurance and guarantee won't work properly considering the importance of anonymouty here.

[webtricks]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

Why do you think we need Crypto Insurance when we have an easy option?
Crypto Insurance will create additional cost. With level of risk involved, no sane insurance company will charge less than 20% of the raised amount as insurance premium. Hence it would unnecessary impact project negatively. Rather than Crypto Insurance, a trusted escrow service is 100% better option. Reputed companies like Binance or Coinbase (don't bash me over this) can escrow all funds raise in ICO and release funds to team after allocation is complete.

[Febo]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

Most ICOs are securities and security regulations should apply when starting an ICO.  No hot water needs to be invented, since all is already set.  Of course that as it was in past few years, the one that gave money to the ICO organizers were totally without any rights and security.

[gentlemand]

Plenty of financial markets self insure with pooled funds or governments back it such as bank deposits.

No conventional insurance company would touch it with a barge pole unless they had full control of the process.

They should be using an escrow that releases or returns the funds on evidence of results. NEM has a venture fund that works just like this. Of course no ICO operation will do that as they 'need' $10 million in ETH to maintain their one page website.

[bozo333]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

It is good but the investors and exchanges needs to take action for it.

I see many people panicking on invest over the ICO and henceforth all people turns to invest on the IEO market on any exchanges. I ma not sure policypal kind of team can be helpful for this idea as my belief.

[creeps]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

Insurance on investing with cryptocurrency is very low to happen for now because of volatile price and of course because of so many scam projects. If there’s a regulations that requires new projects to get an insurance so investors have the assurance then I think it will work, but for now no one wants to do that kind of project maybe because of the risk.

[boyptc]

But who will implement and force this kind of regulation? anyway the market for ICO is already doing bad and it's going down.

[Shenzou]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

Insurance and Crypto don't really go together, insurance companies insure that you are compensated for an accident or something that is out of your league, and with crypto and ICo you are investing in your own will even though you know the risk, and what happens when the ICo fails or the ones responsible for the project decide to take the money and leave, what are they gonna do they can't purse them because crypto is not regulated, in this market there are only the rules of the wild goes.

[FanEagle]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

I think that is not remotely possible because if a person who is creating the ICO no longer wants to work on it than they have the right to do so. Coins are almost always decentralized and if even the creator of that coin doesn't want something yet the people and miners do then people will pick the new fork and the miners will too which means owner will have nothing to say. Did we asked satoshi nakamoto when we moved to segwit and now lightning network? No.

It means when a coin is out its everyone not just the creators thing, if a creator doesn't want to continue working on it then they can decide not to, it belongs to people now and not the owner. The owner offers you a coin and you pay for it but the rest is just up to gods to decide what will happen or won't happen.

[electronicash]

no wonder I don't see projects related to insurance that is getting into the market. i have seen one just last year but its now gone already. it sticks in my mind because it was intended for Asians like me. the project's name is SURETY. an ERC token i believe made by the team from singapore. i was watching their video on youtube for awhile i didn't really quite understood what they were telling on it but they claim to be doing great. IDEX i think listed them.

[b3llsf1l3s]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

It is good but the investors and exchanges needs to take action for it.

I see many people panicking on invest over the ICO and henceforth all people turns to invest on the IEO market on any exchanges. I ma not sure policypal kind of team can be helpful for this idea as my belief.

IEO now is the best choice for them who wanna invest their money for some project. But at the same time we just can expect it will gain profit. Even some IEO is just gain under 100% ROI. Depends on what kind of project, whitepaper, partnership and their real goal.

[freedomgo]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

What are the criteria of this insurance?

If this would give good protection to investors then I will always agree with it, the scam rate is very high in ICO, investors and bounty participants are both scam, so it's nice to see some initiative to have an insurance on a certain crowd sale.

[fiulpro]

But the problem with ICO's is that to start they already want people to invest since you know , they are collecting enough money as to kick start their project , insurance will not only demotivate some of them but might be problematic.
And when we talk about scamming people , it cannot protect from every scam because unfortunately insurance amount cannot cover everyone being added daily , if it would the company itself won't be able to function .

I think complete documentation and compulsory submitting the ID is something that should be made mandatory, not even submission but checking too , when we know who is holding this up we can actually sue them if they try and do something.

[noormcs5]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

This is definitely a good idea since ICOs have a very bad image as of now. If this would happen, we would need a third party to hold the insurance fund either its a company, or an escrow. With this, the chances of an ICO to be a scam would be limitted.

It would be difficult to determine the price of the coins or maintain the price of the coins, so the purpose of insurance for an ico just not fall in the scope.

Due to the heightened risk of ICOs ending up as scams and just money grabs, I don't think insurance companies would even dare enter this market full of shitholes and scammers knowing that they're always betting against the wrong side of the coin. Also, even with the amount of regulations imposed for ICOs, I don't think people will view it differently ever again, knowing that only a few percent of those ICOs actually turned out to be legitimate. We know how insurance companies operate, and of course they wouldn't enter a market wherein they wouldn't gain shit.

No one will give any insurance for ICO because most of them are scam from the beginning. No insurance company will take such risk. Even i think IEO are also not reliable. They are however better then ICO because they list on exchanges at least.

[joshy23]

But who will implement and force this kind of regulation? anyway the market for ICO is already doing bad and it's going down.

Big question, who will implement and what are the capabilities of assuring the investors that they can do this work without any problem, investment will be much better if you have this some assurance that will work with your money, then still it will continue be a question whether this will succeed.

[bettercrypto]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

Actually, there are crypto insurance ICO already that I have seen. But they failed to reach the soft cap and others turn into scam ICOs. Until now, there is no legitimate cryptocurrency that talks about insurance. The only popular kind of ICOs most of are joining, no other than exchanges platform. That is why until now, there is no crypto insurance project.

[bering]

It might be good idea and can be minimize scam ICO's but insurance on ICO have to regulated and as far i know ICO's similar such as investments tools which is the regulation will depend on the act of particular government and unfortunately if all of about crypto or related it until now rare to see the governments really serious to concern about consumers protection although many investors has been losing their money

[Findingnemo]

What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.

If something exists like insurance for investments on the initial coin offering then everyone will go for because 90 percentage of the time people who are investing on the initial coin offerings are getting nothing, but it that even possible?