Topic: $257 Million: Filecoin Breaks All-Time Record for ICO Funding (Read 1758 times)

Wish  a "follow"  feature is available on this forum.. need lots of like minded folks to follow. We need to be organized. The way things are going these days is unbelievable. Cryptocurrency is about Decentralization, non- crypto fans need to respect this and leave us alone.

Exactly.. why do they need a quarter billion dollars ?

Such ICO's and such funds says one only - many people wanting to catch fish in troubled waters. For what project need s such budget I don't understand. Real company with real product collect much smaller funds and do own product.
Imho soon big fund raising will be equal scam or projects from which to stay away

That is fucking retarded fail.


https://coinmarketcap.com/

Amount from the Bitcoin ICO ?

0 Dollars and 0 cents. 

A quick check on the Internet shows that Dropbox ( the company) was valued at 10 Billion dollars in 2014.  $250 million for a startup competing in that space doesn't seem totally out of line, to me.

Record breaking Crypto-Pyramid Scheme ?
Shocked 

What do they need a quarter billion dollars for again ?

If you're 25 now and invested in this. Good luck getting a 10X ROI or nothing at all by the time you have a grandson.  

You know of course that most (or a very significant portion) of the money ends up in the pockets for those who organized this, not in R&D.

The tragedy-of-the-commons in fundraising, means that it will always be a slush fund for the crocodiles and bureaucracy.

It’s a tragedy-of-the-commons no matter if it is regulated or unregulated. The top-down control — required to enforce regulation to prevent South Seas Bubbles wherein people are not dumb to invest in worthless shit — enables crocodiles to take most of the fundraising for themselves.

ICOs are the antithesis of decentralized. They’re the antithesis of what some of us ideologically dedicated folks want to achieve.


Not for R&D.

With that amount of money gathered from their ICO, they should have updates posted for it within days of launching the coin. There is so much things that someone can do with that much money, 257 million dollars can be used to hire a huge amount of developers that can build the project and expand it without the money in the budget being affected by it. They wouldn’t even need a million dollars to get people interested in working with them, so it should be interesting to see how much longer they will wait till they release something ground-breaking and disrupt virtual currencies.

I have been warning everyone that ICO-issued tokens (even if legally issued) can’t be traded or used as a cryptocurrency, because as securities they must only be traded on regulated exchanges.


Thus the SAFTs that were sold in the Filecoin ICO encumber the Filecoin tokes as securities. Thus the Filecoin tokens are useless and can’t be actually used decentralized (unless hypothetically the common enterprise ceases as explained below).

Quoted from the 1933 Securities Act:


My analysis about “use value” tokens being irrelevant to the issues that the Howey Test looks at, agrees with the attorney I am quoting here.

It doesn’t matter that the SAFTs can be speculated on and that the separate Filecoin tokens have some utility other than as speculations, the Howey Test only requires that the investors have an expectation-of-profit in a common enterprise managed by the others (typically the issuer), and the security is the investment contract certificate that records who receives the gains. Any obfuscations which attempt to circumvent the intent of the law, which is that securities must always be registered and trade on registered examples, are invalid under the Howey Test. There is no way to convert a security into a non-security (except as aforementioned the common enterprise ceases), because that would circumvent the entire point of the law. The investors are not investing in SAFTs but in the Filecoin tokens they receive for the SAFTs. Without the Filecoin tokens, the SAFTs are worthless. The Howey Test states it will always look at the economic reality and ignore any tricks that attempt to obfuscate the economic reality.


Promoting ICOs makes you an affiliate. Which means you have severe fines and even jail time awaiting you in the future.

You may be in a some 2nd or 3rd world country and think you are out-of-reach of such regulatory crackdown. But those G20 can still find a way to take your assets and arrest you. That is if you use an international wires, travel internationally, etc.. They may also in the future pressure your government to acquiesce to enforcement as the USA has achieved with FATCA worldwide.

EDIT: since writing this post, I have recently analysed the securities implications in more detail.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.

how different is filecoin to stoj and maidsafe? are they not oing exactly the same thing?

This happening also popped up in my newsfeed in my browser and I had no words when I read it. The majority of the sale was bought out by big time investors and the ICO was exclusively available only for private investors. No wonder it made that much because of what they bring into the field.
It's going to be real cheap, cloud storage. No more high priced services like Dropbox and instead everyone will be able to trade coins in return for storage space which is a great idea. I can only see good going to a great height because of the well thought ideas.

If you think i'm lying than you clearly have no understanding of this space and what it is. Sure, States will attempt to regulate but this will fail over time and those that don't will thrive. There are no clawbacks with a blockchain, pandoras box has been opened.

I feel bad for Filecoin investors. They probability just dont understand how much money 257 Million is. This is a good example how you can influence others with good marketing.

filecoin.io, you can find whitepaper on the front page.

never hear about that ICO before and this ICO world is crazy.

I wasn't aware of that thanks for informing me i was afraid to invest in this ico because most according to me are considered scam because they simply fill up 50 pages and raise millions. About this project now I'm surely gonna hold it for long term siacoin is really slow but will recover slowly in the coming days or maybe weeks

Yes, you are right! So is this the future of ICOs? Are accredited investors the only people allowed to invest money in the ICO before listing them in an exchange? Then why do they need a token? Why not follow the traditional way of funding a project?

Unless the big boys want to control the whole scam funding model to scam us.

The equity securities regulation issues are a mess. For example this article will give you some idea how difficult it is to comply given international investors combined with US investors, and reporting requirements once it grows, and then think of the mess it will be to actually ever go IPO or reach a capital gain on your shares:

https://www.paulhastings.com/publications-items/details/?id=9c59e969-2334-6428-811c-ff00004cbded

If we go that route, we’ll likely end up in some regulatory or lawsuit “purgatory” (i.e. gridlock clusterfuck) down the line. It is a huge mess that we need to avoid.

I've also edited the following post to make it clear that I do not think the crowd equity paradigms are without problems:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21616747

I’m leaning away from equity as viable funding for decentralized ledger development.

Whereas, decentralized groups could raise their own equity for their own companies that develop (e.g. revenue generating apps) for a decentralized ledger ecosystem. Because they can form a small group selling to investors in one country.

I realize some others are thinking about obfuscations such as governance models like Dash’s scammy issuance of tokens to itself and then voting by themselves to pay themselves. I think that is way off target. The decentralized ledger (and its tokens) must be unencumbered from securities regulation. Over the long-term, all encumbered decentralized ledger tokens will be destroyed by regulatory action. They are not anti-fragile.


An interview about SAFT explains some of the issues, but do realize I disagree that the SAFT is a valid solution.

I always wonder why people need a lot of money for ICO. even without the chinese ban, what you think that they will do with our $257 million? Does this project really need a big amount of money to run? I do not think so. There are many small ICO but they can still successful