Your opinions on IEOs

[Rockie1234]

Recently, I've seen a lot of positive press regarding IEOs. After all, Binance is already successfully running them, giving ICO projects a chance to shine and many other exchanges are following suit.
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.
Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Your thoughts?

[1715238751]

1715238751

[1715238751]

1715238751

[1715238751]

1715238751

[1715238751]

1715238751

[1715238751]

1715238751

[rosezionjohn]

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.

These exchange owners are businessmen and they will pounce at every opportunity to make money. I don't think you can put them in a bad light for seeing a demand and providing solutions to retail investors issues with ICOs.

Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Out of all the CEX that launched their IEOs, only Binance was able to have their own DEX (or hybrid dex). It maybe asking too much for these CEX to go for decentralization at the moment especially now that even IDEX had to require KYC to all its users.

[Rockie1234]

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.

These exchange owners are businessmen and they will pounce at every opportunity to make money. I don't think you can put them in a bad light for seeing a demand and providing solutions to retail investors issues with ICOs.

Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Out of all the CEX that launched their IEOs, only Binance was able to have their own DEX (or hybrid dex). It maybe asking too much for these CEX to go for decentralization at the moment especially now that even IDEX had to require KYC to all its users.

Of course, I am not blaming them, but I feel that IEOs should be discouraged for the reasons I gave. Actually I wasn't aware of the IDEX verification stuff, that is terrible. I dont expect major exchanges to make these DEXs, but there are existing ones like Bisq which look promising, even though they are hard to use. But the IDEX situation surely supports my point; even IDEXs are bowing down to regulation even though many of them were built for privacy. All I mean is we need a good DEX otherwise purchasing Bitcoin will be as difficult as purchasing traditional financial assets.

[rosezionjohn]

Of course, I am not blaming them, but I feel that IEOs should be discouraged for the reasons I gave. Actually I wasn't aware of the IDEX verification stuff, that is terrible. I dont expect major exchanges to make these DEXs, but there are existing ones like Bisq which look promising, even though they are hard to use. But the IDEX situation surely supports my point; even IDEXs are bowing down to regulation even though many of them were built for privacy. All I mean is we need a good DEX otherwise purchasing Bitcoin will be as difficult as purchasing traditional financial assets.

I've read some discussions about the pros and cons of IEOs and one of the cons is what you pointed out. It's true that they will be given more control/power but what can you do when it's the people that wants to give them power.

I'm not sure how long this IEO trend will last after the IDAX IEO scam (faking volume) was exposed though.

Here's the article to IDEX btw https://medium.com/idex/idex-kyc-transition-period-and-updated-asset-availability-for-us-markets-set-to-begin-d45e945f842d

[cliber]

Recently, I've seen a lot of positive press regarding IEOs. After all, Binance is already successfully running them, giving ICO projects a chance to shine and many other exchanges are following suit.
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.
Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Your thoughts?

I appreciate you because my mind is not like your thoughts that are too far from crypto. So far, I have only adopted people, meaning that if people say the IEO is better than ICO, then I follow them, arguing that the IEO is better. But, after I read this post, I had to learn a lot about crypto.
I agree that blockchain technology is safer when it comes to data storage.

[Rockie1234]

Of course, I am not blaming them, but I feel that IEOs should be discouraged for the reasons I gave. Actually I wasn't aware of the IDEX verification stuff, that is terrible. I dont expect major exchanges to make these DEXs, but there are existing ones like Bisq which look promising, even though they are hard to use. But the IDEX situation surely supports my point; even IDEXs are bowing down to regulation even though many of them were built for privacy. All I mean is we need a good DEX otherwise purchasing Bitcoin will be as difficult as purchasing traditional financial assets.

I've read some discussions about the pros and cons of IEOs and one of the cons is what you pointed out. It's true that they will be given more control/power but what can you do when it's the people that wants to give them power.

I'm not sure how long this IEO trend will last after the IDAX IEO scam (faking volume) was exposed though.

Here's the article to IDEX btw https://medium.com/idex/idex-kyc-transition-period-and-updated-asset-availability-for-us-markets-set-to-begin-d45e945f842d

Yes, you are right to some extent, people seem to be in favour of IEOs. My concern is that the bull run has brought a new type of investor who knows little about the original Bitcoin ideals, with decentralised money being a key part of the currency. What is your opinion on Bisq exchange? Is there market potential in creating a new DEX project?

Recently, I've seen a lot of positive press regarding IEOs. After all, Binance is already successfully running them, giving ICO projects a chance to shine and many other exchanges are following suit.
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.
Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Your thoughts?

I appreciate you because my mind is not like your thoughts that are too far from crypto. So far, I have only adopted people, meaning that if people say the IEO is better than ICO, then I follow them, arguing that the IEO is better. But, after I read this post, I had to learn a lot about crypto.
I agree that blockchain technology is safer when it comes to data storage.

Glad I can help! If you are interested in these kinds of things, I would recommend reading about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and about the "cypherpunks" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk  If this info helped you a lot I would be very glad if you merited my post although it is completely up to you.

[CryptoBry]

I see two big reasons why ICO is now replaced by IEO. One, there is more trust here compared to the usual ICOs because the exchange (assuming that it is reputable as well because there are now many exchanges springing almost everyday and many of them are just here for the money) can be providing additional layer of security as long as the exchange is doing its job of vetting on the project and the people behind it so that we can be sure that it is real, genuine and would have less chance to run once they have the money on the bag. Two, this is providing a better liquidity for token buyers because the coins/tokens are automatically taken in by the exchange. We know that there were so many ICO projects in the past that failed to get into even just one exchange.

As to the concern that exchanges can be getting more powerful...that can be true only because maybe we are just concentrating on Binance but when there can be more reputable exchanges doing the same thing, then the so-called power can easily be diluted or minimized. We have to remember that even without the IEOs, in my opinion, exchanges have their own inherent power as they can decide which projects they would like to be on board and which to reject.

[cliber]

Recently, I've seen a lot of positive press regarding IEOs. After all, Binance is already successfully running them, giving ICO projects a chance to shine and many other exchanges are following suit.
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.
Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Your thoughts?
I appreciate you because my mind is not like your thoughts that are too far from crypto. So far, I have only adopted people, meaning that if people say the IEO is better than ICO, then I follow them, arguing that the IEO is better. But, after I read this post, I had to learn a lot about crypto.
I agree that blockchain technology is safer when it comes to data storage.

Glad I can help! If you are interested in these kinds of things, I would recommend reading about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and about the "cypherpunks" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk  If this info helped you a lot I would be very glad if you merited my post although it is completely up to you.

I am not a person who likes to praise, if indeed the person has abilities that can help me, I think it is my duty to respect.
Once again, thank you for the reference you gave and I will read to increase my knowledge. Isn't the IEO clearer and more open than the ICO?
Why do many investors turn to IEO?

[adamin1i]

Recently, I've seen a lot of positive press regarding IEOs. After all, Binance is already successfully running them, giving ICO projects a chance to shine and many other exchanges are following suit.
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.
Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Your thoughts?

IEOs The only difference from ICO and others is to know which stock exchange will be listed on the stock exchange. other than that I think there is no difference. so many token and coins are added to the dump every day. And when this fashion is over, a new 3-letter word will be produced.

[Rockie1234]

Recently, I've seen a lot of positive press regarding IEOs. After all, Binance is already successfully running them, giving ICO projects a chance to shine and many other exchanges are following suit.
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.

Exchanges are already making far too much from listing fees, so IEOs on top are completely unnecessary. While they are good promotion for coins, such practices cannot be good in the long-term.
Instead, the focus should be easy-to-use decentralised exchanges which don't require intrusive KYC/AML and are much less likely to be corrupt/ill-willed if some DAO-like structure is in place. While blockchain technology has made the storage of data much safer, what is the point if thousands of crypto exchanges hold endless amounts of data on the customers in the same way banks do? The only thing changing is who owns the data, so privacy has not improved. And as crypto adoption increases, so will regulation of exchanges.
We don't want to end up in a situation where to trade any meaningful amount of crypto you have to send your name, address, ID, and bank account details to some exchange which can do whatever it likes with your data.

Your thoughts?
I appreciate you because my mind is not like your thoughts that are too far from crypto. So far, I have only adopted people, meaning that if people say the IEO is better than ICO, then I follow them, arguing that the IEO is better. But, after I read this post, I had to learn a lot about crypto.
I agree that blockchain technology is safer when it comes to data storage.

Glad I can help! If you are interested in these kinds of things, I would recommend reading about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and about the "cypherpunks" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk  If this info helped you a lot I would be very glad if you merited my post although it is completely up to you.

I am not a person who likes to praise, if indeed the person has abilities that can help me, I think it is my duty to respect.
Once again, thank you for the reference you gave and I will read to increase my knowledge. Isn't the IEO clearer and more open than the ICO?
Why do many investors turn to IEO?

They turn to them because if IEOs are listed on an exchange, that lends more trust (less chance of being scammed). There is also an element of exclusivity, these IEOs sell out very quickly so people FOMO in without too much thinking. And don't worry, by merit I just mean the button next to the option to quote a message, not any literal praise. I'm not saying all IEOs are bad, I'm saying you can easily tell which projects are to be avoided without needing them to be listed on an exchange which gets more money and power as users become more dependent on it. If you go to Binance and find out the listing fee for a coin/IEO, it is ridiculous, hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

[zaxifu]

These are my opinion on IEO.

1. Ensuring Only High-Quality Projects Get Funded.

The problem with ICOs was that anyone could, and did, raise funds. For example, the creators of the FUEL token used the proceeds of their ICO to purchase a pair of Land Rovers and lease a Lamborghini. It’s not clear whether they ever had the intention of seriously developing the coin. This is just one instance among many of people raising money who never should have in the first place. IEOs are changing that.

2. Providing Immediate Liquidity for Projects.

IEOs are different. As Boytsov points out, “by already having the assurance of liquidity on a major exchange before the IEO even starts, investors can feel more confident in buying based on the other significant factors they take into consideration.” This guaranteed liquidity is a major advantage of the IEO model and it’s also a relief to investors who no longer have to worry that the coin they’ve invested in will fail because it can’t afford to pay to get listed on an exchange.

3. Enforcing Proper KYC.

This is helpful not only to the person investing, they don’t have to worry that they’re buying a coin that they’re not legally allowed to own, but helpful to the coin’s founding team as well. There has been a growing number of cases where the SEC has forced founders to return funds to American investors and/or pay a fine. By barring certain investors a project’s team doesn’t have to worry that they’ll be on the wrong side of regulations. 

If you think to invest in IEO I suggest you some IEO.

1.GlobalChainZ
2.Moozicore
3.AIGO Protocol

[semes]

...
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.
...
Your thoughts?

In fact, if someone asks us, we say that the most important feature of Bitcoin is that it is "decentralized". But nobody wants to use DEX. The DEX I'm talking about is not what Binance created. Literally ...

[Rockie1234]

These are my opinion on IEO.

1. Ensuring Only High-Quality Projects Get Funded.

The problem with ICOs was that anyone could, and did, raise funds. For example, the creators of the FUEL token used the proceeds of their ICO to purchase a pair of Land Rovers and lease a Lamborghini. It’s not clear whether they ever had the intention of seriously developing the coin. This is just one instance among many of people raising money who never should have in the first place. IEOs are changing that.

2. Providing Immediate Liquidity for Projects.

IEOs are different. As Boytsov points out, “by already having the assurance of liquidity on a major exchange before the IEO even starts, investors can feel more confident in buying based on the other significant factors they take into consideration.” This guaranteed liquidity is a major advantage of the IEO model and it’s also a relief to investors who no longer have to worry that the coin they’ve invested in will fail because it can’t afford to pay to get listed on an exchange.

3. Enforcing Proper KYC.

This is helpful not only to the person investing, they don’t have to worry that they’re buying a coin that they’re not legally allowed to own, but helpful to the coin’s founding team as well. There has been a growing number of cases where the SEC has forced founders to return funds to American investors and/or pay a fine. By barring certain investors a project’s team doesn’t have to worry that they’ll be on the wrong side of regulations. 

If you think to invest in IEO I suggest you some IEO.



1.GlobalChainZ
2.Moozicore
3.AIGO Protocol

I understand what you are saying, but we are seeing this from different perspectives. While point 1 is true, it also means it is "Pay to win," with only those ICOs who have large amounts of money already being able to raise funds, and so young entrepreneurs with good ideas but not necessarily much money miss out. And for point 3 many ICOs have in fact prevented US buyers from purchasing tokens, eliminating this problem. My issue is with the increasing dependence on the exchange at the cost of Bitcoin ideals.

...
My personal opinion is that IEOs should be discouraged. Firstly, it gives more and more power to these centralised exchanges, who are able to charge higher, more ridiculous listing fees for coins as well as extremely large payments to hold IEOs. Their vested interests in this way mean they are less likely to care about vetting projects that may be untrustworthy, leading to even more irresponsible behaviour.
...
Your thoughts?

In fact, if someone asks us, we say that the most important feature of Bitcoin is that it is "decentralized". But nobody wants to use DEX. The DEX I'm talking about is not what Binance created. Literally ...

I think it is an attitude problem, most are concerned with making money and therefore want easy-to use platforms. I think people need to consider privacy more to realise how important DEXs are.There needs to be less of an echo chamber in cryptocurrency communities.

[Little Mouse]

Couple of days ago, I have seen a post from tk808, he was also pointing this that mostly Binance is getting more power which is a threat to the crypto community. I am agreed too that centralized people must not be given such power.

[rosezionjohn]

Yes, you are right to some extent, people seem to be in favour of IEOs. My concern is that the bull run has brought a new type of investor who knows little about the original Bitcoin ideals, with decentralised money being a key part of the currency.

I get your point. In this fast changing cryptocurrency market, we cannot really prevent such things from happening. This is probably the reason why folks like us are here for.

A bit off-topic but I think it is safe to liken the situation to how some people have moved from decentralized cryptos to centralized types like XRP. Imagine also how some people here became so happy with the launch of a stable coin with centralized network (libra).

What is your opinion on Bisq exchange? Is there market potential in creating a new DEX project?

I have not tried bisq yet. I've only heard that it is not user-friendly yet. It maybe a good chance for them to step up now to capture the traders leaving IDEX.

[alicea]

IMO IEOs hosted by top exchanges are really good for scoring good short-term profits that's the reason I try to win as many tickets as I can for binance's launchpad project.

[Metall303]

IMO IEOs hosted by top exchanges are really good for scoring good short-term profits that's the reason I try to win as many tickets as I can for binance's launchpad project.

short term? Do you think that these projects will not be successful in the future?
I have not invested in some project at the launchpad stage on Binance.

[forexandcryptoauditor]

At the moment IEOs are much popular for investment in cryptocurrencies' projects. Whether. It's ICO or IEO, I have seen a single thing in favor of investors.
The discount offered by projects is nothing but kind of bounty to attract more investors showing how much money they have raised.
During the IEOs I have observed many times that instruments "paged" price is much higher than current market price at that moment. As soon as IEO is over, you will see a sharp fall in that instrument.
Untill regulation will not come, exchanges and projects will play their games to make profit for themselves.

[bigcash2011]

I feel more at home with IEOs simply because they are properly checked and analysed by the team of analysts that represent the exchange platform, only if the project passes their tests only then a project is listed so that gives major confidence boost to investors and that is why i like IEOs too.

[Rohtox]

One of the things I know up till now is that most of the projects that carry out the IEO on an exchange, 90% of the tokens or coins from the project will be directly listed in the that exchange. Liquidity and security issues are also one of the factors considered by investors.

The bad side.
The possibility for manipulation still exists as long as transparency is not really implemented.