Topic: Are ICOs & ‘Tokens’ are killing innovation? (Read 272 times)

The SEC has deemed ICOs to be equivalent to securities, as far as I know. Wasn't that the fallout from the DAO scandal that caused Ethereum's most recent crash? If they haven't deemed ICOs to be equivalent to securities, they're falling way behind on their jobs, because they certainly are equivalent to securities; it may be that they're still working on a way to accurately and fairly regulate them without killing them entirely, or of course I could just be entirely mistaken. Fairly sure I read an article to that effect on Coindesk though, and they're usually fairly reliable.

Granted most of the ICO are released based upon one of two things either promise of prophet or promise of a new technology, but they too or not interconnected anyway. Somebody can release a brand new technology on a new coin and it doesn't have to be in ICO.

Nothing's killing innovation. Just because people get mad because they lose money to an Ico doesn't mean that Innovation is going to change in any way shape or form.   How exactly is innovation and these icos connected in these people's minds anyway?

Tezos alone raised over 200 million dollars. I see how many ICOs are upcoming and it blows my mind.

I think you are way off here. I bet ICOs collected over $1 billion in 2017.


They are just People being paid in advance for their product.   I do think they would be able to deliver way cheaper without ICO.   What si positive is that they also get a bunch of people supporting them. Funny is that some dont even realize that and use it in their advantage.

Dear SEC: ICOs & ‘Tokens’ are killing innovation
https://hackernoon.com/dear-sec-icos-tokens-are-killing-innovation-2f8d287f88c3

Initial Coin Offerings have raised $200 million dollars in 2017. Here is a short list of recent ICOs, and their fundraising results:
Basic Attention Token — $35 million USD
Storj — $30 million USD
Waves — $16 million USD
Qtum — $15.7 million USD
Gnosis $12.5 million USD
Iconomi — $10.5 million USD
Golem — $8.6 million USD

So what is an ICO?
ICO’s are an old phenomenon in the blockchain space with a new brand name. The word ICO is merely a synonym for an ‘unlicensed security’. ICOs are released to investors under a pretense of venture equity, but with the specific purpose of circumventing SEC authority and control.

ICO fundraisers leverage the confusion around ‘blockchain technology’ to swindle uninformed consumers with false promises, dubious claims, and dishonest terms related to their ‘high yield’ investment opportunities.

Here’s the state of the ICO/Token industry today:
Token-based fundraising and company valuations are 5x-10x higher than incumbent fundraising mechanisms, with no investor protection
Retail Investors are left holding these worthless securities in lieu of real world assets, unable to comprehend what risk they’ve agreed to
Previously fined offenders are operating these schemes unscathed, and without even so much as reputational damage to their name in exchange for dumping these securities onto victims
Elaborate schemes are undertaken to project scarcity, where no scarcity exists, for the promotion of ‘tokens’
Inventory of these so-called ‘decentralized’ ICO tokens sit on exchanges where they are actively traded, and rarely (if ever) withdrawn for use
To date, there has never been a ‘consumption’ of a token that offers an efficiency over incumbent online solutions.
In many cases, it is unclear how these tokens are anything more than unsecured and poorly structured liabilities issued by the ICO team.
It is unclear why ‘blockchain’ is needed for any of these projects, other than as a mere label, in which to dodge regulatory enforcement.

‘Tokens’ have preexisted blockchain by decades, and are in widespread use in incumbent data systems. The only new ‘development’ that is causing the rise in these platforms, is the lack of SEC action in response to increasingly aggressive fundraiser claims.

How did we get here?
Clearly Bitcoin was the precursor. Bitcoin’s success was an unplanned experiment which culminated in a massive bubble during 2013. But as Bitcoin’s market cap growth stalled in 2014, Venture capitalists began early attempts at recreating the manic euphoria of the Bitcoin movement in the years prior. David Johnston (Factom) and Ethereum promoters led much of that discussion, with many of today’s fundraising buzzwords coined in various papers and guides that they promoted. Over time, more established, and vocal Venture Capitalists began to chime in.
Fast forward to today, and these ICOs are effectively pitching the security as the common man’s ticket to Silicon Valley success.
If the ICO term sounds eerily similar to “IPO” well, that’s no coincidence. In the minds of impressionable and inexperienced, an ICO is an IPO. ICO proponents will of course state otherwise, but the difference between these terms is increasingly cosmetic.

Here’s what IPOs and ICOs have in common
Both are sold at the onset of a venture, to fund a team of corporate officers for deployment of a venture
Both are marketed by teams of promoters for sale on exchanges (though ICO promoters are far more aggressive boiler rooms operations)
Both ICO and security exchanges are nearly identical (or strive to be) in their design, and trade features

Here’s what’s different
ICO has ‘blockchain’ in it. Though what that means? Well, no one really knows, or cares.
There are no regulations, constraints, or pretense of investor guarantees on ICO offerings
There is very little due diligence being performed on these offerings, and it is routine practice for convicted offenders to launch these offerings without restraint
The ‘rights’ offered to shareholders are shockingly limited. There is generally no pretense of signing legally valid documentation for profit sharing, voting, auditing, or corporate rights of any kind - despite the fact that promoters often promise that their schemes will permit these things
Members of the ICO promoters and marketers are generally given inventory, alongside insider information in the venture, and use this position to exit their risk onto investors immediately after ‘going public’ (and before building a product)

What’s the Problem?
When ICO’s deliver 100% of the company’s expected receivables at launch, founders are incentivized to leave their project immediately thereafter
As such, these projects are increasingly resembling classical ponzis, with the losses borne by ordinary blue-collar Americans
No pretense of accuracy or responsibility for claims have led to ornate perpetual motion schemes receiving funding, at expense to humbler better-grounded offerings.
Incumbent and regulated VC models are no longer sustainable fundraising options, as the returns from ICO ponzis are starving out capital and perverting investor expectations
The common narrative amongst investors is surprisingly simple: Great fortunes were made in Bitcoin, this is your chance to get in on Bitcoin riches. And this narrative is so ingrained in the minds of investors that websites exist to strengthen and quantify the claim.

For the ICOs that have already run their course, victims will not speak out. They believe that either they themselves are fully responsible for their loss, or that they would not be able to exit their meager positions by doing so.

There is no ICO success story. Like all ponzis, ICOs are nearly guaranteed to be profitable until the time at which capital inflow has ceased. The success stories merely exist amongst the lucky, or those with insider information on when to pull out of the schemes.

Where’s it going?
Left unabated, ICOs will completely displace any pretense or recognition of security regulation law
Boiler rooms will continue to grow more aggressive in finding ignorant and unaware Americans to prey on
Facebook, Youtube, and other social media ads will grow more brazen with their claims, and less scrupulous with their demographic targeting
Self-help coach, Youtube, and Celebrity endorsement schemes will continue to grow into organized affinity fraud
Unrepentant and serial offenders will continue to run subsequent and larger rounds of ICO schemes
Companies completely outside the blockchain space will use the moniker “ICO/Token/blockchain”, to raise capital without the cost or liability associated with traditional securities regulation
ICO claims will grow increasingly detached from the limits of science and meaningful progress
Industry representatives will sponsor bills and advocate legislation designed to indemnify operators, and promote these practices

So what’s next from here?
The ICO industry will get as big as the SEC decides it should be. Though I’m sure that recent high profile actions were a fine use of its resources, such scandals have now been dwarfed by the growth of the ICO market. My assumption is that reputational damage to the SEC will grow commensurate with this market.
Ridicule of the SEC’s authority is already common amongst investors, and will spread to fundraisers themselves. Such disdain is already at so great a level that this Texas company would appear to be recreating the original Howey Test, but with the word ‘blockchain’ in their prospectus.
So-called ‘Blockchain’ securities have become a return of the South Seas Bubble, the fallout for which will eventually become a burden to American citizens and taxpayers. An ‘ICO’ is merely a label that’s been assigned to the current state of a securities regulation vacuum. There’s nothing ‘blockchain’ about tokens.