How would you view an ICO project if it was launched by an accredited lawyer?

[marcayden]

Hey there everyone,

Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?

In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.

Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.

Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!

P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.

[batang_bitcoin]

Hey there everyone,

Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?

How can that ICO prove that he's an accredited lawyer? We saw a lot of these people working behind the team are professionals and with good titles but they tend to be a copy paste names, titles and cropped images.

In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.

Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.

Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!

P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.

Sorry with that loss you've made with that project. That's already a clue that you should find a better investment vehicle in cryptocurrencies rather than getting into another ICO. The advisor thing is really pumping and hyping the project especially if it's a very known person and that guy validates that he's endorsing the project.

[StatesManG]

Hey there everyone,

Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?

In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.

Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.

Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!

P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.

I don't know what you mean by a project offering an initial coin offering have an accredited lawyer because there is even no way to prove such accreditation. the best option still remains the initial coin offering until there is a better option. if the project has an accredited lawyer, they can prove that to an accredited exchange

[Denies Distro]

Hey there everyone,

Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?

In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.

Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.

Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!

P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.

It seems like yes, because in the past I saw projects using accredited lawyers were more enthusiastic and also they could finish hardcap a little faster than regular ico, except that I had never tried an ico that had an accredited lawyer and only chose regular ico  and fortunately at the altseason, the ico that I invested in the price of the token was crazy and I got 10x from it, but this time the project was dead and not listing on any exchange

[shinratensei_]

Hey there everyone,

Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?

The main consideration should be the product or there was a major exchange site that supported it or not. at least if that was running by an accredited lawyer registered in local authorities and I may think if the project must fulfill all of the criteria to be considered as a project that follows the regulation but this will not always bring you HUGE ROI. It will make small difference for me as an investor.

[kindbtc]

I would not fall easily if they claim that the project is from an accredited lawyer unless I am satisfied with majority of the aspects of the project including the practicality and use cases.
Regarding investing in an ico which resulted in heavy loss later, I think all of us are in same boat and we cannot do much about it, unfortunately all these icos are highly risky and there is no guarantee of profits or even for the recovery of original capital.

[cytpoway121]

The truth is that nobody cares about icos anymore, nobody just care.
Almost every crypto currency investor are tired of crowdfunding programs.

Let me tell you the truth, even ieos are not selling large again, except it is listed on the biggest exchanges such as binance, kucoin, okex and gateio.

Either the ico project has a lawyer, or a judge; it doesn;t stop the fact that it could be fraudulent, so always do your research well and verify that the teams are indeed real.

[Yaunfitda]

Hey there everyone,

Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?

Doesn't make any difference at all. But if it boils down to trust and credibility, of course 'lawyer' may sway them to invest, but it is not an assurance that they won't scam.

In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.

Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.

Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!

It's because it was really the hype, the peak of investors pouring their money and thinking that they can will make a lot of money. Investors mature in the next following years, so they are careful regardless of who are the people behind.

[ecnalubma]

I’ve seen a lot of ICO’s fail even if its run by professionals. Some of them came from different industries and sometimes respected companies, so in my opinion it doesn’t matter if whoever runs the project it doesn’t guarantee that certain project will succeed and the risk is still there.

[4Y078]

The truth is that nobody cares about icos anymore, nobody just care.
Almost every crypto currency investor are tired of crowdfunding programs.

Let me tell you the truth, even ieos are not selling large again, except it is listed on the biggest exchanges such as binance, kucoin, okex and gateio.

Either the ico project has a lawyer, or a judge; it doesn;t stop the fact that it could be fraudulent, so always do your research well and verify that the teams are indeed real.

He gets it right 

[patz22]

Most scam projects are using this kind of scheme, using known individuals even lawyers so that they can attract investors, surely, it is a good thing to have those kind of people but still you will never know until it is the end or once they deliver their product. Some wise investors are taking advantage, let say, going to the hype and once they see the peak they will just release and never come back.

[makishart]

Most scam projects are using this kind of scheme, using known individuals even lawyers so that they can attract investors, surely, it is a good thing to have those kind of people but still you will never know until it is the end or once they deliver their product. Some wise investors are taking advantage, let say, going to the hype and once they see the peak they will just release and never come back.

If the identity of the lawyers have already verified and it may give more guarantee. You must see how blockstack was getting launched by the lawyer and team that gets approval by SEC. that means if that depends on how credible the lawyer.

[Anonylz]

When I come across post like this the thought of crypto regulations come to mind, nowadays people are so scared to imvest in ico because of the fear of getting scammed,
But if the space where a bit regulated, that fear will be less, because all project will be held accountable for any misconduct during the process of their fund raising, if they fail to deliver, they are obligated to refund investors money asap, this way people will feel a bit safe investing knowing if anything goes wrong their investment is secured.

[bgaf]

Hey there everyone,

Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?

First is how would you know if his really an accredited lawyer and also, why a lawyer? Does he have knowledge about ICO and blockchain. He maybe a legit person starting an ICO, but that would be enough to have a successful ICO? I think your basis is purely about legality, and that is not the only criteria cause experience with blockchain is needed. In cryptocurrency, its better if the owner have these traits, legal, technical, and financial enough to support his need to launch.

Also maybe his legit on website but the truth is he is not that person at all.

[Coyster]

P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.

You should have used this experience to learn something about ICO projects, I guess you're thinking here that a lawyer would probably mean straight away that the project is legitimate, even apart from the fact that the team can just clone themselves to be lawyers; even real lawyers can still carry out an ico scams with the ICO team and get away with it, not all lawyers are clean imo.

If you continue investing in icos, you'll have more of this experiences than good ROI, i now understand that many bounty hunters and investors just keep testing new projects, hoping they deliver on their promises and whitepaper, you should indulge in other profitable aspects of cryptocurrency industry than doing that, it will only take more effort, but will come with rewards rather than exit scams, shitcoins, pump and dump coin etc.

[jessyj48]

Been a lawyer doesn't say anything about what will happen to the project, we've seen many who even lied about their professions just to caught the attention of investors, no matter what the CEO is I care less, all I'm interested in is the quality of the project

[NavI_027]

If that's the case then I might say the ICO will be 100% legit simply because he knew the laws . Besides, for sure he don't want his credibility tarnished so he won't run a scam for sure. But when it comes to its future, I think being an attorney as a dev or CEO won't contribute so much on the sales. I mean, he is not as popular as other personalities in the industry so don't expect that the prosperity of the project is guaranteed. At the end of the day, it was just another 'promising' ICO ; high chances for it to become a pump and dump coin.

[Stanlo]

So you want to invest in a ICO project because the CEO is an attorney? Lol im sure you will end up losing your money, in 2018 many investors invested in projects that had popular advisors or popular team members but after sometimes things end up pretty bad, still haven't learnt anything? Read again

[rdewilde]

To me it doesn't make any difference, whether from an accredited lawyer or not it will still be viewed like the way ICOs are being viewed till date. Another truth is, during the ICO days many team claimed to be what they aren't all in a bid to make their money and it mostly worked so coming up with that same line won't change any thing. Lastly as for me, I have nothing to do with any ICO again, if the project is truly from an accredited lawyer, then let the team get their facts right, build their project and get listed on good exchange for IEO, they will mostly get their support but if it's ICO, the reverse will likely be the case.

[mr.robot8]

let's say that an ico conducted by an accredited person, a lawyer has more confidence from investors and perhaps is less at risk of scam but this does not mean that it will be successful and will meke earn the investors this nobody can know it until the end of the ico