Perhaps some sort of volunteer-managed "Altcoin clearinghouse" could even be developed, with each coin listed and a status on verification activities posted. It would be a quick reference for traders to see whether each coin has been vetted, to what degree, any issues that have come up, and so on. It could be ad-supported and if it is anything like I expect it would receive a ton of visits daily as a standard reference tool for altcoin traders.
Just to let you know, setting up a clearing house means doing some legwork for a future regulatory agency. That's exactly the chain of progress that led to the SEC being placed over what are sometimes called "Self-Regulatory Organizations" (dealer associations, exchanges, and of course clearing houses.)
As long as you're cool with it, fine and dandy; I'm more-or-less reconciled to something like that happening. I'm making my point so that you and anyone who likes your idea can go ahead with eyes opened.
If you're interested, try tracking down a full-length book on the full history of the New York Stock Exchange or of Wall Street in general.
I'd rather have a voluntary website that people can use or ignore as they wish, then wind up having the government set up some onerous set of regulations. The idea I floated above would just be a tool people could use or ignore as they wish. Over time if it was successful, exchanges might come to rely on it (more or less), giving it some weight/authority. But as I envision it, it would all be free-market and voluntary in nature - no one would force an exchange to pay attention to the information on it, and people could pay attention to it or ignore it at their peril.
I can see what you mean about such an idea leading by degrees to a more formal, controlling body. But I think you'll wind up at that conclusion faster if you don't do anything and people continue to fall victim to scams leading to an outcry to government to "help." At least with this approach people would be able to fight the encroachments as they started coming up. (I'd certainly be inclined to do so, as they crossed the line from voluntary to coercive/punitive attempts at regulation.)
I honestly would prefer an all-voluntary approach. But I'm enough of an amateur historian of these things to offer a different opinion.
Bureaucrats are organized people, detail-oriented, who admire thoroughness. I actually respect them, as people, for that. They're also known for not showing initiative. In a democracy, that's how it should be. The democratic-regulatory State we live under was designed to leave the initiative-taking to elected politicians, at least theoretically elected by the people. Bureaucrats are expected to stay within the bounds of their authorizing mandate. That isn't always the case, as I'm sure you've come across, but there's still an expectation that this sequestration of initiative is the way things should be. Changing the rules, instead of passively enforcing them, should be confined to elected officials that are - at least theoretically - accountable to the electorate via elections.
I know that your approach is common-sensical, and even jibes with the mantra of our times: "The government is in place to do for the people what the people can't do for themselves." But consider the issue from the point of view of a bureaucrat.
Since bureaucrats are organized and orderly people, they would prefer a largely orderly market to maintain and guide, which includes landing on crooks (however defined by their enabling legislation.) So the typical bureaucrat will take a look at this here place and conclude, "Gawd, this is like Somalia. The only way we can secure an orderly market is if we send in a gunboat. And since we don't have a gunboat handy, we shouldn't try at all."
And then they'll say to the people who are crying for help, "Sorry, but we lack the authority to do that. All we can do is issue official warnings saying in plain language that this marketplace is high-risk, very volatile, and interlaced with crime. It's something like the inner city of marketplaces, and is about as anarchic. Other than that, we can only offer sympathy and good time-tested advice."
But on the other hand...if they see a cleaned-up marketplace, one with clearing houses etc., they'll say: "Yep, we can regulate this. We'll do it in the same way that the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates the investment markets. It'll take some doing to craft out appropriate enabling legislation, by elected officials of course, but we already have a working template in the SEC. The time has really come for alternate cryptocurrencies to grow up."
I do see your point, but in a different way. If the cries for help reach elected politicians and sway them, they will swing into action. But any action, given the 'Somalia-esque' nature of the altcoin scene, will more likely be outright illegalization...using the now-potent hot buttons of "terrorism" and "money-laundering" as an enabling mantra.
So, as I just noted, you do have a valid point. I'm not trying to deter you at all from pursuing your plan: if anything, I'd like to encourage you. You might well own/operate the altcoin's answer to the all-private
Consumer Reports. If you can make a living providing that service, that'd be great!
I'm just giving you a history-based heads-up, that's all. Proceed as you will!