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

[Mulann2]

Lol! I really don't get why many posters acting like ico is the problem here, the problem is not ico but the people behind it, any good accredited project that have pass through security checks can lunch an ico and be successful even in this hard times, provided they follow  strict  laws and regulations, but since crypto is open for all and no control is why ico has turned shit,
Don't get it twisted, initial coin offering is not the problem because it is a tool or a process of raising fund, but the people who use this process without any form of control or guidelines are the problem,
This is what you get when people are given the freedom to do as they please.

[1715415328]

1715415328

[1715415328]

1715415328

[1715415328]

1715415328

[1715415328]

1715415328

[1715415328]

1715415328

[1715415328]

1715415328

[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?

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.

Thanks and I have definitely learnt my lesson on this front.

I'm actually just trying to do an on-ground survey on the perception of ICO/ITO/IEO and whether having a named lawyer at its helm (as a Founder) would sway confidence in any way.

I'm currently assisting with an IEO project called AEXON (https://aexon.co) with a senior accredited lawyer practising in Singapore running the whole show.

With all the talk about scams, was just wondering if this would bring peace of mind to investor (given that Singapore has strict KYC and AML laws as well).

Thanks for sharing anyways!

[gweedo]

In any case, an ICO is a scam. In 2018 and 2019, there were many large companies and organizations that recognized ICOs as well. But in the end, those ICOs became scams and disappeared from the market. Please stay away from ICOs if you still want to gain profits in this market

[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.

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

Thanks for sharing your insights!

The thing is there are certain ICO ranking/listing sites that accept crypto payments to be listed and might in a way, skew its credibility too.

But I know in general, most of this ranking/listing sites requires pretty extensive credentials better they would even consider reviewing/listing the tokens.

Of course, when ICO scams were a thing, people were definitely more than able to put in that little bit of effort to scam others of millions.

At least with IEOs now, exchanges can regulate the token offering industry a little better.

[Mighty_crypt]

It's meaningless friend, what will am accredited lawyer have to do for the project with his statue to make people want to invest in the project? Do you know how many times McAfee fumbled in crypto space? Still I'd rather chose him than any lawyer because, being a lawyer and crypto are both different things

[judeafante]

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.

There are more credible than accredited lawyers, there are businessman, bankers developers but their reputation is not enough to carry the weight of making a project great, it losses support overtime because it's not something that can sustain for a long time in terms of profit and usage of the platform.

[Retainly_Collie]

Do not care what others say and comment. Consider the project based on your experience. In the past, I used to invest in Fomo projects from celebrities, but eventually they became scams and disappeared from this market.

[Greatchu]

Projects from celebs or well known people are the most dangerous projects to invest on because they will easily build hype that's based on the popularity teams or CEO or advisors and after some while price will surely dump, I'm just talking from experience, we know what happened to Moozicore that McAfee promoted

[Vishnu.Reang]

How is this going to make any difference? If the project is not good, it is going to fail at the market. Anyone who invested in it will lose their money. Whether the promoter is an advocate or not is not going to make any impact on the future of the ICO. On the other hand, there are some additional risk factors. He may use legal loopholes, to escape from owning up the responsibilities.

[azarharus]

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

yeah agreed, it doesn't really matter if it is an ico or not actually. its just users and investors are convinced that icos are cursed or rarely successful at all
but accredited person in charge is a good sign for investors for sure
don't think that regular user actually check who runs the campaign at all

[Yamifoud]

Don't fall into a person who claims that he was a lawyer or high profile link unless he/they will provide their real identity and proven to be true. Because this might be a way to attract investors and think that they can be trusted. Don't forget how smart are the scammers today, they'll do everything just achieve their goal and put everything to be at risk.
Because for me now, I used to skip ICO projects for investment but rather to consider those projects that are proven already...

[el kaka22]

Well, I believe there has to be someone we all know, and there are not that many accredited lawyer that I know. The reason why "known famous people" starting projects or be parts of it was the fact that we heard that name before.

But even that wasn't enough, I could see the hugest Hollywood names on the "team" page but as long as I do not see them supporting it somewhere I will not really believe you, so that famous person in the crypto world or in some other world, has to share that support, and if they do I will believe and invest probably. Yet lawyer is not someone that is famous, sure there are some judges and all that who are a bit famous but even they are not too much famous, hence I think it is not the same thing to compare them to the famous people.

[South Park]

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.

Not much will change at least on my case, after all my first question will be why a lawyer is releasing an ico? My reaction could be different if the one releasing the coin was a known developer that was known as capable and responsible and that has led several projects to success in the past, that will attract my attention, but when it comes to anyone else and that includes famous people, famous investors or anyone with a profession other than a blockchain developer my opinion of the project will not change at all.

[Bananington]

As it stands, even if an accredited lawyer launches an ICO, I can't risk my funds in it. Why not go through a reputable exchange to launch the project. The main reason why I won't invest is the fact that I can't be so sure if truly its from an accredited lawyer, also I'm not sure of listing in a good exchange after the ICO. And if the token sale doesn't go well since people don't fancy ICO anymore, it becomes an issue.

[thisnewcoin]

No one wants to invest in the ICO project, many famous people tried already and they failed! This year David Chaum's XX coin had an ICO and the result wasn't the same as expectation. Last year EZ365 CEO did IEO/ICO but that was failed too. So, people do not care who is launching the ICO project, because ICO means a waste of money, where IEO investors getting good ROI continuously! So, for your question, my answer is, I have the same decision for a shit ICO and a great ICO because I just don't care ICO anymore!

[7788bitcoin]

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.

I would trust if a proved developer comes up with a project that is feasible than anyone else. I cannot imagine a lawyer with a software development background and hence there is no way to think that he could succeed in doing something than many failed. Starting a project is one thing but carrying on with the development is another, we have seen many projects that had good developers and good projects at first glance but what they do after collecting all the money is not monitored, if everything is recorded and monitored by a third party that is accredited and if they fail to fulfill what they started then they need to return the investment and if so then i will invest .

[Twinkledoe]

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.

I would trust if a proved developer comes up with a project that is feasible than anyone else. I cannot imagine a lawyer with a software development background and hence there is no way to think that he could succeed in doing something than many failed. Starting a project is one thing but carrying on with the development is another, we have seen many projects that had good developers and good projects at first glance but what they do after collecting all the money is not monitored, if everything is recorded and monitored by a third party that is accredited and if they fail to fulfill what they started then they need to return the investment and if so then i will invest .

Yes, lawyer even accredited one can't make a successful project but definitely he can manipulate the docs. A real developer can make the project successful as he knows what to do with the project, but a lawyer, how will he do the programming and all? So I won't invest in an ICO project launched by accredited lawyer. He knows how to go around when things are not in favour on their side.

[robelneo]

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.

There's no difference at all, there are a lot of crowdfunding with reputable name and organization behind the project, but failed miserably in the market and in their ICO, the project could be legit but it's not gaining support because the platform is not attractive or there is no usage for the coin, investors are wiser now, they want longevity of the project and what it can contribute to the community.

[imstillthebest]

you mean you have invested on a project that is launched by an acredited lawyer before but still fail to achieve success  . that is still possible because having a lawyer does not dictate the sucess of a project but there are also regular or normal projects without a lawyer but still became succesful at the end  .  its unpredictable mate   .  scammers can also claim that thier project is compose of professional people with lawyers but they are all fake and people will just believe on it if ever they wont conduct a brief research

[isaac_clarke22]

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

Lawyer is surely gonna be confident but the investors I don't think so.
Having someone popular or somehow reputated to get into crypto is like the same way as the launching of Libra Coin of Facebook by Zuckerberg.
It kinda reduces the risk of the scam because it is surely a popular platform, but earning from it? I don't know.