I think it could be a good idea in theory, but the implementation and execution will be quite hard, there will be a lot of question and document to provide, IEO is better than Ico with insurance, but scam is not the only problem, yhe abandon project is one of the problem that cant be handle by insurance
Having an insurance might be a good idea but this might be very hard to be realized because it takes more legalization in the process. Although this might be a good way to keep us secured but knowing we are in a risky investment, no one might take the risks. 
Topic: Crypto Insurance (Read 730 times)
What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
I don't think compulsory insurance is a good thing, and that ICO-related insurances can be popular (too much scam, decreasing popularity. Who'd be issuing them?). However, I think that crypto insurances for individuals can become a thing, and be a very profitable business. I am pretty sure that many would be interested in paying a small monthly fee for knowing that in case they get scammed, they'll be compensated by their insurance company. And since most of the people don't get scammed, after all, the companies will have good revenue.and fraud on crypto space is pretty high,this isn't just like on life insurances or car insurances which we know the rate
of such accidents isn't really that rampant which isn't equivalent here on this market.So this is a lit idea about crypto insurances.
Cryptocurrency insurance, it might sound good because people are guaranteed to invest, although later there are intentions that want to cheat them so there are already those who suffer losses, but this is very difficult to realize because not everyone agrees on the existence of this cryptocurrency, so it is difficult to insure this
What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
I don't think compulsory insurance is a good thing, and that ICO-related insurances can be popular (too much scam, decreasing popularity. Who'd be issuing them?). However, I think that crypto insurances for individuals can become a thing, and be a very profitable business. I am pretty sure that many would be interested in paying a small monthly fee for knowing that in case they get scammed, they'll be compensated by their insurance company. And since most of the people don't get scammed, after all, the companies will have good revenue. 
Using cryptocurerncy as insurance is the best ideas how to make price keep higher, when bitcoin or altcoin up you can get double profit for your insurance and keep sell it with higher price.
You are talking in a general scale, the topic here is about ICO and insurance was suggested to minimize the investors getting scam, although they get scam but with insurance their money is safe, however, the big question is, will this kind of business feasible in the market now?
I know we have very great experts who are very good in managing projects and seeing it to success, and I am still wondering how they are able to come up with the idea of cryptocurrency loan in a decentralized technology, running it perfectly well and yet I have never seen anyone complain of defaulters, if they can run cryptocurrency loan easily, someone might just be out there who would want to risk it too, and this may be a great idea, but to me, I don’t think the risk will be worth taking for anyone that wishes to set up a company.
insurance is very important because disaster or disaster will always come suddenly through insurance we can get back something damaged or lost due to the disaster even to our assets even if you insure it,
but the stage of metabolizing with crytpo or blockchain I think insurance companies prioritize asset mechanisms and premiums for participants.
but the stage of metabolizing with crytpo or blockchain I think insurance companies prioritize asset mechanisms and premiums for participants.
What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
I don`t think so! I applied several times in insurance company and I think they are enough to help my family in case I died. Therefore, cryptocurrency for me is not for insurance but by investment. We invest because we want to ensure our future. its good to see that there is already crypto insurance that might help people to be secured.
It seems to me that certain guarantees for the participants of the process should always be not only with respect to investors, but also with respect to participants in the Bounty company. The fact is that investors always have fixed actions with respect to a particular project, and for participants in the Bounty company there is always deception or violation of the terms of the deal. It seems to me that everything should happen According to each letter of the agreement. but how to insure the participating persons in a project? I think that maybe in some respects, IEO gives certain guarantees.
What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
It would be really great to have insurance when it comes to investing, i believe it would minimize the lose and especially scam. The truth is i do think it will be impossible and there will be no insurance company that are dare enough to provide such services. 
I think it could be a good idea in theory, but the implementation and execution will be quite hard, there will be a lot of question and document to provide, IEO is better than Ico with insurance, but scam is not the only problem, yhe abandon project is one of the problem that cant be handle by insurance
Having an insurance might be a good idea but this might be very hard to be realized because it takes more legalization in the process. Although this might be a good way to keep us secured but knowing we are in a risky investment, no one might take the risks.Legalization is easy as a certain insurer can just apply for the business license to operate, it's the potential of the business is the one that I think not feasible at this time.
I'll provide some comment on escrowing funds or locking of funds, as a form of ICO assurance. It's not insurance I know, but the same concept of protecting funds.
I know of at least 3 ICOs in 2017 that used some form of insurance, engaging escrows to manage raised funds. I followed 1 very closely (all 3 failed, although all 3 denied they failed). All 3 refunded whatever amounts left they had in escrow, and the one I followed eventually returned about 35% (or thereabouts I can't bother to dig it up).
In theory, excellent idea. Funds were disbursed according to roadmap milestones... but no one among the investors expected that the escrows were the ones to determine conditions for disbursements. Independent audits of expenditure (and heck, audits of the product and code!) were naively expected, but project owners were in bilateral agreements with escrows (sometimes even unilateral).
It was still a loss, and a disappointment, partially because it wasn't just money that was invested but all the unnecessary headache of arbitration and completely different expectations from investors (of the escrows and owners).
But it wasn't an entire loss. Lessons could be learned from such fundraises I still feel it was a good starting model.
I know of at least 3 ICOs in 2017 that used some form of insurance, engaging escrows to manage raised funds. I followed 1 very closely (all 3 failed, although all 3 denied they failed). All 3 refunded whatever amounts left they had in escrow, and the one I followed eventually returned about 35% (or thereabouts I can't bother to dig it up).
In theory, excellent idea. Funds were disbursed according to roadmap milestones... but no one among the investors expected that the escrows were the ones to determine conditions for disbursements. Independent audits of expenditure (and heck, audits of the product and code!) were naively expected, but project owners were in bilateral agreements with escrows (sometimes even unilateral).
It was still a loss, and a disappointment, partially because it wasn't just money that was invested but all the unnecessary headache of arbitration and completely different expectations from investors (of the escrows and owners).
But it wasn't an entire loss. Lessons could be learned from such fundraises I still feel it was a good starting model.
What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
Then thats insurance agency will bankrupt, because they will bear all the investment costs that you spend, because many ico become a scam. I'm sure there won't be an agency that will guarantee you safe in ICO investment, if you want to be safe then don't invest, basically all investments have risks, so face it dude
Using cryptocurerncy as insurance is the best ideas how to make price keep higher, when bitcoin or altcoin up you can get double profit for your insurance and keep sell it with higher price.
You are talking in a general scale, the topic here is about ICO and insurance was suggested to minimize the investors getting scam, although they get scam but with insurance their money is safe, however, the big question is, will this kind of business feasible in the market now?
What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
Then thats insurance agency will bankrupt, because they will bear all the investment costs that you spend, because many ico become a scam. I'm sure there won't be an agency that will guarantee you safe in ICO investment, if you want to be safe then don't invest, basically all investments have risks, so face it dude What are your thoughts about having a compulsory insurance when someone wants to do some ICO so that investors are safe and the participants are also safe? So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
A proper regulation and monitoring of these projects who collects insane amount of money will reduce these scam projects who start their projects and then a couple of years later inform their investors that their experiment was a failure and not compensating the investors while these people who started the project made insane amounts of money and it will stop and right now we are not seeing those projects and with regulations these sort of experimental projects will end. 
if that can happen there will be no ICO scam and more investors will invest. but will there be insurance for investors? and who guarantees it? and how does the ICO run if investors are in insurance right?
I'm thinking of the premium itself, I'm sure insurance company will charge us a high premium since ICO is a high risk investment.
I don't think it will succeed and the current market state, insurance business will grow when the market will be regulated.
I don't think it will succeed and the current market state, insurance business will grow when the market will be regulated.
Users have known well about the reality of crypto market. It is truly hard to implement such a insurance on an unregulated Market. To show themselves trustworthy they can have some reserve fund in separate wallet and can be showed to the investors or can be kept hold with an escrow. This will add value to the project, but a crytpo insurance is simply impossible.
Aint going to work.
Some ICO are new and they want to keep on using the money rhat is being offered for the project to have a good head start.
I mean, that is why they are doing it right?
Although it could also be done if a company is already in set. They might just need the money to avoid getting bankrupt or for a back up plan but they do really have the money to upgrade their service.
Some ICO are new and they want to keep on using the money rhat is being offered for the project to have a good head start.
I mean, that is why they are doing it right?
Although it could also be done if a company is already in set. They might just need the money to avoid getting bankrupt or for a back up plan but they do really have the money to upgrade their service.
I think there should be like a separate funds that goes into insurance which would make sense and the ICO companies would be allowed to pick how much of it goes there. Think about it this way, they are doing it via ETH lets suppose, so you have a company asking for 10 million dollars and if they are %100 funded they will receive it and investors will receive the new coin, so far everything is exactly the same.
But, think about what if they put 3 million aside as insurance and anything above 10 million also goes for insurance as well. That way if a company asking for 10 million but got 15 million instead will be capable of putting 8 million in insurance and 7 million into operations. Worst case scenario if the coin falls 20% it would be at break even, anything under that and insurance will be used to buy the coins back and burnt, that way that coin could never worth less than 20% under the ICO price.
But, think about what if they put 3 million aside as insurance and anything above 10 million also goes for insurance as well. That way if a company asking for 10 million but got 15 million instead will be capable of putting 8 million in insurance and 7 million into operations. Worst case scenario if the coin falls 20% it would be at break even, anything under that and insurance will be used to buy the coins back and burnt, that way that coin could never worth less than 20% under the ICO price.
Jump to: