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

[joshua123]

I think there is no change even its handled by a lawyer. Crypto project boss usually are composed of different sector some are businessman, artist, developers, as long as the project showcase a relative good concept, unique and have a good set of team to work on it then its okay. The bearing that it was handled by a lawyer could be good since he know that if he commited a crime or fraud he will be jail so launching a legit one will be much safer.

[Reid]

First, proof of authenticity.
We need that. There had been a bad event before where students used the profile of their professors to create the team of an ICO.
Forgot its name. But it got viral here.

Next, legitimacy. How can we be sure? Where should we check it? What if there is privacy control in their country?
He could show papers but I could also make one to be a fake lawyer.

If he passed that all, the project.
Even if you are the most tweeted guy in Twitter, the project could still fail.
It is not just about the name or position. Investors are getting careful now.

[michellee]

I don't overthink about that because the era of the old ICO project is over, and I think it will replace with the new trend. Even if that project launched by an accredited lawyer, it doesn't mean he can easily to gain popularity on the internet because he needs to compete with the other project. Maybe he is famous in real life, but he cannot expect to get the same thing when he goes online because he will meet many people who already famous on the internet, but they don't recognize in real life.

[holly.ball8]

It meant jack shit. Yeah, I said it! The difference between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer is none. At best, regular ICO just pay some clown with a title 'accredited lawyer' to fool people. Now, if that person was an influent person, someone everyone respect and is well known among crypto. That would be hugely different.

[hiburak]

It wouldn't make any difference to me. I think the current investors are mainly concerned if there will be enough liquidity for quite a while after the token sale. Liquidity always comes first.

[DDante]

Doesn't make sense to me, a lawyer and an ICO project? What are your thoughts? Good regulations? LMAO, it's never going to happen and don't bet your trust on the project because CEO is a lawyer

[TastyChillySauce00]

doesn't make any difference, it's the investors who have the right to judge and whether the project is run by an accredited lawyer if the project is garbage it will just become yet another failure, otherwise if the project is already good from the start then it could probably pave a way to become succesfull ICO, in the world of crypto only reputable exchange could help carry the reputation of garbage project.

[SyndicateLabs]

How can a lawyer guarantee it's a good project? I will never trust ICO projects at the moment, so all fomo people will not be important to me.

[Winscosinally]

It's not safe, just because the brain behind a new project is a well know law man makes no difference, this won't stop things from going so damn wrong, this ain't real life investment, it's online and crypto for that matter, a haven where criminals aims for people's hard earned cash, be extremely careful

[fortunecrypto]

Not different from the other ICO I've checked, I will checked on the platform and how it can contribute to the community and of course I will check the reputation of each developers, whitepaper is also very important because so many scammers are just copying the whitepaper of other projects, past and present.

[Shallow]

I don't see any thing different in it just like in others thus I will still view it just like I did for others, which is, as a potential scam. During the era of ICO we heard many things from people who claimed to be this or that, we saw many things too and yet that didn't stopped them from carrying out their scams rather it gave them more opportunities to defraud people. In my own honest opinion, if the project is truly a good one, then IEO should suffice.

[qazgroup]

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 will not make much difference atleast for a person or lay-man like me and majority of other investors here, yes it could impact positively among legal fraternity but still you have to convince them too about your project and they could respect you because you are professional from their own department.

[bobitza]

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?
I really don't know this very well. But if you participate in an ICO project run by a recognized lawyer, this is very dangerous. Any basis to prove he is an expert or island rocket. I don't do anything when I don't know them well. You need to make sure your money is safe and profitable. That is my motto.

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 really don't know this very well. But if you participate in an ICO project run by a recognized lawyer, this is very dangerous. Any basis to prove he is an expert or island rocket. I don't do anything when I don't know them well. You need to make sure your money is safe and profitable. That is my motto.

[retnoanjani]

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.

We know that this does not apply now. Moreover, there are many fake projects that fake their team members, using the names of famous and influential people, even though they are fake. So don't be easily influenced by this kind of manipulation.
Well, ICO's popularity has dimmed, investors have lost their confidence after many frauds under the guise of ICO. So IEO is the best choice, with guarantees from trusted exchanges that make investors more confident, even if they have to adapt to technical matters, at least this is a safer way.

You are not alone, I have been trapped in ICO. Let it be an experience that motivates us not to repeat the same mistakes again. It's time to choose another strategy that is better, don't just stick to the ICO, there are other opportunities.

[anhhung409]

Do not care what others say and comment. Consider the project based on your experience. There have been many companies and large organizations that recognize ICOs as well. But in the end, those ICOs became scams and disappeared from the market. Stay away from ICOs if you still want to gain profit in this market.

[DoubleEdgeEX]

It doesn´t matter who is behind it, conducting your own due dilligence is always of uttermost importance. VCs tend to support people they already know, and yet still many of those fail. Beside that, it´s easy to buy a lawyer or an advisor just for the sake of being able to use his name and put it prominently on your website. Cheapest offering I ever got was 3ETH for an advisors. I assume if you want to use Pomp or Vitalik you can add a few zeros to that price.

ICOs got safer but are still something you need to do your own research about it before investing.

[CashbackLover]

I don't care about an accredited lawyer and so are other people, what investors want must be present in the accredited lawyer's project or you will see people walking away, there are too many lessons I'm crypto space, one's status won't make people invest in coins anymore, it doesn't count

[qigong13]

How 'accredited lawyer' he is will be the main point to convince investors to invest in that ICO. He can be an accredited lawyer but if he doesn't know about crypto or just know little of it then he won't able to convince investors.

[Harriti]

I will not believe any information posted on the project website. because they can fake the information at any time and no one has control. When investing, I usually read their whitepaper and roadmap. If their ideas are rational and there are new directions, that will be a plus point. There are also some great partners in the crypto market that will make it easier for them to grow. That's the way I analyze a project before investing, apart from those factors, I don't care about anything else.

[junkerr]

I will not believe any information posted on the project website. because they can fake the information at any time and no one has control. When investing, I usually read their whitepaper and roadmap. If their ideas are rational and there are new directions, that will be a plus point. There are also some great partners in the crypto market that will make it easier for them to grow. That's the way I analyze a project before investing, apart from those factors, I don't care about anything else.

currently investing like that also does not provide collateral. invest in those who already have a product or those who already have a market. it will be better and promising.