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 713 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.
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 great idea but to be conducted by whom, by insurance company? Which insurance company would agree that you sure a product that is not fully recognized or regulated by government. The risk of cryptocurrency is far too much for any legalized government insurance company to ever accept to sure any cryptocurrency holder. Anyway, it would not be a bad idea of you start it first, since crypto users has been left to their fate to regulate the industry, I think someone with so much money who is a cryptocurrency believer can volunteer to run the services, look at SEC, many cried several time for regulation of ICOs, but when they failed to do so, what happened? Binance came up with the self-regulatory idea of IEO which has been fully been of help in gradually eliminating the issue of scam, maybe Binance could also try to conduct this, but they would prefer to so that on their IEO products and still not ICO.
But who will implement and force this kind of regulation? anyway the market for ICO is already doing bad and it's going down.
Big question, who will implement and what are the capabilities of assuring the investors that they can do this work without any problem, investment will be much better if you have this some assurance that will work with your money, then still it will continue be a question whether this will succeed.Locally, they can be followed if that ICO is on a country that's forcing such but how about those offshore ICO?
Pfft. Insurance business are making profits out of the impossible.
Let us say life insurance.
Out of 100 that will register with them and will pay a lot of money every year. How much are the chances one of those is going to die in a year or 5.
That is why they are booming. They know the math.
Now with crypto??? There is too much risk of money being scammed or a project to fail.
So the answer will always be a no to them.
You are your own insurance. Insure the quality and the management of the ICO. To keep yourself safe.
Let us say life insurance.
Out of 100 that will register with them and will pay a lot of money every year. How much are the chances one of those is going to die in a year or 5.
That is why they are booming. They know the math.
Now with crypto??? There is too much risk of money being scammed or a project to fail.
So the answer will always be a no to them.
You are your own insurance. Insure the quality and the management of the ICO. To keep yourself safe.
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.
If something exists like insurance for investments on the initial coin offering then everyone will go for because 90 percentage of the time people who are investing on the initial coin offerings are getting nothing, but it that even possible? 
It might be good idea and can be minimize scam ICO's but insurance on ICO have to regulated and as far i know ICO's similar such as investments tools which is the regulation will depend on the act of particular government and unfortunately if all of about crypto or related it until now rare to see the governments really serious to concern about consumers protection although many investors has been losing their money
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.
Actually, there are crypto insurance ICO already that I have seen. But they failed to reach the soft cap and others turn into scam ICOs. Until now, there is no legitimate cryptocurrency that talks about insurance. The only popular kind of ICOs most of are joining, no other than exchanges platform. That is why until now, there is no crypto insurance project. 
But who will implement and force this kind of regulation? anyway the market for ICO is already doing bad and it's going down.
Big question, who will implement and what are the capabilities of assuring the investors that they can do this work without any problem, investment will be much better if you have this some assurance that will work with your money, then still it will continue be a question whether this will succeed. 
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.
This is definitely a good idea since ICOs have a very bad image as of now. If this would happen, we would need a third party to hold the insurance fund either its a company, or an escrow. With this, the chances of an ICO to be a scam would be limitted.
It would be difficult to determine the price of the coins or maintain the price of the coins, so the purpose of insurance for an ico just not fall in the scope.
Due to the heightened risk of ICOs ending up as scams and just money grabs, I don't think insurance companies would even dare enter this market full of shitholes and scammers knowing that they're always betting against the wrong side of the coin. Also, even with the amount of regulations imposed for ICOs, I don't think people will view it differently ever again, knowing that only a few percent of those ICOs actually turned out to be legitimate. We know how insurance companies operate, and of course they wouldn't enter a market wherein they wouldn't gain shit.
No one will give any insurance for ICO because most of them are scam from the beginning. No insurance company will take such risk. Even i think IEO are also not reliable. They are however better then ICO because they list on exchanges at least.
But the problem with ICO's is that to start they already want people to invest since you know , they are collecting enough money as to kick start their project , insurance will not only demotivate some of them but might be problematic.
And when we talk about scamming people , it cannot protect from every scam because unfortunately insurance amount cannot cover everyone being added daily , if it would the company itself won't be able to function .
I think complete documentation and compulsory submitting the ID is something that should be made mandatory, not even submission but checking too , when we know who is holding this up we can actually sue them if they try and do something.
And when we talk about scamming people , it cannot protect from every scam because unfortunately insurance amount cannot cover everyone being added daily , if it would the company itself won't be able to function .
I think complete documentation and compulsory submitting the ID is something that should be made mandatory, not even submission but checking too , when we know who is holding this up we can actually sue them if they try and do something.
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.
What are the criteria of this insurance?
If this would give good protection to investors then I will always agree with it, the scam rate is very high in ICO, investors and bounty participants are both scam, so it's nice to see some initiative to have an insurance on a certain crowd sale.
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 is good but the investors and exchanges needs to take action for it.
I see many people panicking on invest over the ICO and henceforth all people turns to invest on the IEO market on any exchanges. I ma not sure policypal kind of team can be helpful for this idea as my belief.
IEO now is the best choice for them who wanna invest their money for some project. But at the same time we just can expect it will gain profit. Even some IEO is just gain under 100% ROI. Depends on what kind of project, whitepaper, partnership and their real goal.
no wonder I don't see projects related to insurance that is getting into the market. i have seen one just last year but its now gone already. it sticks in my mind because it was intended for Asians like me. the project's name is SURETY. an ERC token i believe made by the team from singapore. i was watching their video on youtube for awhile i didn't really quite understood what they were telling on it but they claim to be doing great. IDEX i think listed them.
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 think that is not remotely possible because if a person who is creating the ICO no longer wants to work on it than they have the right to do so. Coins are almost always decentralized and if even the creator of that coin doesn't want something yet the people and miners do then people will pick the new fork and the miners will too which means owner will have nothing to say. Did we asked satoshi nakamoto when we moved to segwit and now lightning network? No.It means when a coin is out its everyone not just the creators thing, if a creator doesn't want to continue working on it then they can decide not to, it belongs to people now and not the owner. The owner offers you a coin and you pay for it but the rest is just up to gods to decide what will happen or won't happen.
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.
Insurance and Crypto don't really go together, insurance companies insure that you are compensated for an accident or something that is out of your league, and with crypto and ICo you are investing in your own will even though you know the risk, and what happens when the ICo fails or the ones responsible for the project decide to take the money and leave, what are they gonna do they can't purse them because crypto is not regulated, in this market there are only the rules of the wild goes.
But who will implement and force this kind of regulation? anyway the market for ICO is already doing bad and it's going down.
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.
Insurance on investing with cryptocurrency is very low to happen for now because of volatile price and of course because of so many scam projects. If there’s a regulations that requires new projects to get an insurance so investors have the assurance then I think it will work, but for now no one wants to do that kind of project maybe because of the risk. 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 is good but the investors and exchanges needs to take action for it.
I see many people panicking on invest over the ICO and henceforth all people turns to invest on the IEO market on any exchanges. I ma not sure policypal kind of team can be helpful for this idea as my belief.
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.
This is definitely a good idea since ICOs have a very bad image as of now. If this would happen, we would need a third party to hold the insurance fund either its a company, or an escrow. With this, the chances of an ICO to be a scam would be limitted.
Plenty of financial markets self insure with pooled funds or governments back it such as bank deposits.
No conventional insurance company would touch it with a barge pole unless they had full control of the process.
They should be using an escrow that releases or returns the funds on evidence of results. NEM has a venture fund that works just like this. Of course no ICO operation will do that as they 'need' $10 million in ETH to maintain their one page website.
No conventional insurance company would touch it with a barge pole unless they had full control of the process.
They should be using an escrow that releases or returns the funds on evidence of results. NEM has a venture fund that works just like this. Of course no ICO operation will do that as they 'need' $10 million in ETH to maintain their one page website.
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.
Most ICOs are securities and security regulations should apply when starting an ICO. No hot water needs to be invented, since all is already set. Of course that as it was in past few years, the one that gave money to the ICO organizers were totally without any rights and security.
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.
Why do you think we need Crypto Insurance when we have an easy option?
Crypto Insurance will create additional cost. With level of risk involved, no sane insurance company will charge less than 20% of the raised amount as insurance premium. Hence it would unnecessary impact project negatively. Rather than Crypto Insurance, a trusted escrow service is 100% better option. Reputed companies like Binance or Coinbase (don't bash me over this) can escrow all funds raise in ICO and release funds to team after allocation is complete.
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 good. but i think this kind of things wont work in crypto ecosystem. because any kind of insurance and guarantee won't work properly considering the importance of anonymouty here.
So if the case is like this, you could say there is no insurance. All of that includes risk. ICO, Trading any funds related to crypto is definitely at risk because our goal is to get profit.
Any solution that prevents scams is welcomed as long as it's viable .
One of my favorite suggestions on how to prevent scams is to slowly release ICO funds in phases to developers and watching them spend the fund transparently. Once the developers deviate from the Roadmap/whitepaper and standard without sound reasons, the funds are immediately frozen by the community until the developers give satisfactory reasons for the deviation.
One of my favorite suggestions on how to prevent scams is to slowly release ICO funds in phases to developers and watching them spend the fund transparently. Once the developers deviate from the Roadmap/whitepaper and standard without sound reasons, the funds are immediately frozen by the community until the developers give satisfactory reasons for the deviation.
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.
This is definitely a good idea since ICOs have a very bad image as of now. If this would happen, we would need a third party to hold the insurance fund either its a company, or an escrow. With this, the chances of an ICO to be a scam would be limitted.
I think this is very much needed in the world of crypto investment, many investors are afraid to invest in the ICO because they are afraid of being deceived by the projects they follow, if there is insurance that can guarantee the security of investing in the ICO maybe more investors will invest in in crypto.But to create the HL I think there must be strong regulation first from the government.
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.
No company will ever initiate this kind of insurance business because it is hard to tell if an certain ICO is a legit or not except if the insurance fees are big then maybe they will engage to this kind of business as they will double their effort to ensure that the project is not a scam. We do not know also if we are ready to pay for our insurance expensive cost as we certainly do not know the future of every ICO if they will be a success or not.
true, no company would want to insure one's investment. It is like bearing the loss of one's investment, moreover many projects fail, of course if there is indeed a company it will bear a huge burden.
It is better if you are not ready to invest, do not invest, if you invest, you must definitely bear all the risks, because the decision is in yourself.
Due to the heightened risk of ICOs ending up as scams and just money grabs, I don't think insurance companies would even dare enter this market full of shitholes and scammers knowing that they're always betting against the wrong side of the coin. Also, even with the amount of regulations imposed for ICOs, I don't think people will view it differently ever again, knowing that only a few percent of those ICOs actually turned out to be legitimate. We know how insurance companies operate, and of course they wouldn't enter a market wherein they wouldn't gain shit.
What you offer will not do in a decentralized market. Too many costs and incomprehensible perspective for the future when the ICO is not so popular.
So if ever they want to scam people, people are secured.
Insurance is a serious and legal business backed by the laws of a land to guarantee safety of people's property and investment. Therefore, it is nice for that to happen but it is not yet time because crypto has to be classified as a secured area of investment. So an insurance running can't allow for scam. No point therefore to say that the issue of scam can arise.
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 think we already have seen the insurance from the exchanges which launch IEO because not all exchanges will launch the project. The exchanges itself needs to be selective to launch the project because it will be related to the exchanges reputations. If the exchanges could launch the good projects, it will give the exchanges a good name, and I think that will attract more member to join with them.
And that is why ICO are totally dead right now, while IEO is thriving at the sideline. It is administered by a crypto exchanges, mostly reputable ones. And maybe we can call this a insurance per se, because reputable exchanges won't simply accepts or willing to conduct a IEO in their platform if the project itself is somewhat shady.
And as other have said, who will be in-charge of all of this? There are no single authoritative body that oversee all incoming ICO's, so I don't think this is feasible.
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 think we already have seen the insurance from the exchanges which launch IEO because not all exchanges will launch the project. The exchanges itself needs to be selective to launch the project because it will be related to the exchanges reputations. If the exchanges could launch the good projects, it will give the exchanges a good name, and I think that will attract more member to join with them.
implementing insurance in the Iico project will not be as easy as one might imagine, for example in the real world there are several insurance services that use it for personal benefits that can even deceive customers. Most blockchain project investors do not know the true background of the real team, which is the main problem why fraud continues to occur in the ICO scope.
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.
No company will ever initiate this kind of insurance business because it is hard to tell if an certain ICO is a legit or not except if the insurance fees are big then maybe they will engage to this kind of business as they will double their effort to ensure that the project is not a scam. We do not know also if we are ready to pay for our insurance expensive cost as we certainly do not know the future of every ICO if they will be a success or not.
This can't be achieved, as an user stated, the market is unregulated then who'll be the one to make everything planned and executed. The suggestion from Op is really a good one, but in reality a hard task to get it implemented. The funds can be secured on some escrow who is a trusted person or a team into the same service. If the project gets to be a scam, the funds can be released to the investors.
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.
Firstly, who will be the enforcer of this "compulsory insurance"? The SEC? Or some other regulatory body? The thing is that, even if you have an enforcer, you can't expect every single initial offering to be registered with them, let alone comply with their rules.
Secondly, why would an initial offering bother to try to raise funds, if they are already able to afford an insurance bill that will probably cost a lot, if they are insuring every single investor that is projected to invest?
And lastly, who will be the insurer? Why would anyone be willing to insure such a risky event, especially when it comes to someone over the internet that you have had no previous knowledge about? Nobody wants to take on the risk, and the verification process will simply be way too hard.
It's simply unfeasible overall.
There is no such thing as a "safe investment". If any insurance company were to take such a risk, the premium they would charge would make this option absolutely uninteresting.
What they could do is put down some kind of collateral (a property, shares of a reputable company, etc.) as a guarantee that they won't be scamming anyone.
What they could do is put down some kind of collateral (a property, shares of a reputable company, etc.) as a guarantee that they won't be scamming anyone.
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 is a good idea, but who will be the authority to handle those? You mean the project themselves will find a compulsory insurance to handle such thing? I doubt that they will go on that route. Again it boils down to decentralisation, with no third party in between. Perhaps a good regulatory framework is needed, or change the business model of ICO, just saying.
still confused with the insurance on ico. Will the insurance research ico first? while there are still many governments that have not legalized it, while insurance certainly has a legitimate administration under state institutions. I think insurance is good, but it can't be implemented yet
Ever heard the lines “buy at your own risk” or “trade at your own risk”? Well in the world of investment there is no such thing as "compulsory insurance” because we are already warned before buying. Them being an investment vehicle doesn't assure you that their price will be going up they don't dictate where it will go. For scams or fake projects in the other hand the closest thing we can ever get for “insurance” is them being punished by law and a lot of people are already put in justice with this kinds of frauds in the industry.
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.
that is pretty good. I really support this. We need an organization to sell insurance for this to avoid the fraud of bad guys.Our crypto market really needs insurance, a decentralized market has a lot of scammers and we are very easy to make a mistake.
I used to invest in the Bitnautic project of Scams and Ingot coins. I'm really angry and still waiting for a solution.
Actually, that's a good thing but the problem is, no one in the crypto space would want to go and do that. They can just give back the payments if ever the IEO/ICO fails. That's their job. However, what if the project is not legit? Would they be willing to pay that large amounts just to scam people? Insurance is a big thing. And it also means different perspective for the investors and the managers.
Why should we help the already greedy insurance industry to get more profits, if we can simply regulate the ICO industry ourselves? We already see an increase in IEOs and those projects are mostly fully regulated, because exchanges enforce KYC/AML regulations.
So if the people behind these ICOs are properly identified by these regulations, then scams are less likely to occur. We will also see more scammers going to jail and this will discourage scammers to launch scam ICOs/IEOs.
So if the people behind these ICOs are properly identified by these regulations, then scams are less likely to occur. We will also see more scammers going to jail and this will discourage scammers to launch scam ICOs/IEOs.
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 very difficult to do, look at the amount of money the ICOs are raising and look at the amount of scam that exists. The insurer would have to repay the money the investors lost and for this to work the ICO creators should pay the insurer, but the creators of the ICOs raise funds from the investors. I do not see how the idea of an insurer for ICOs would work
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.
Insurance business is purely based on Statistics and it shows that interest on ICOs are decreasing pretty fast! Rather people are preferring IEOs.
There is no way they are going to insure a totally unregulated market like ICO. Even if they do, the premium will be so high, it won't allow you to make profit from your investment! Insurance for ICOs is a bad business for the insurance companies unless an already established company with profit making business wants to step into this market.
<...>
Just as a general context, ICOs have turned out to be a scam or a failure for the most:
<...> According to a New Study: 80% of ICOs are Scams, Only 8% Reach an Exchange:
80% of the ICOs were scams from the get-go.
6% failed.
5% died in the process.
8% manages to reach the exchanges, but only half were successful.
<…>
The above data is not recent, but covers many of the post-hype ICO results.80% of the ICOs were scams from the get-go.
6% failed.
5% died in the process.
8% manages to reach the exchanges, but only half were successful.
<…>
Insurances play a game of odds. When you insure your house, they stipulate the price based on the chances of each potential element covered by the insurance going wrong, and basically bet against them from happening. The insurance company bets on the fact that a known small percentage of all those insured will incur in some sort of casualty, and therefore, sets the premium price based on those low percentages. Propensity models are created in addition that take into account similar to you type people’s index of incidents, and conform the structure behind the premium price to establish.
Now, even if we omit the fact that ICO tokens are not really tangible assets, whose market values could sway like a madman on a roller-coaster if it ever becomes a market asset with any real value, an insurance company has no way to play the odds game on an ICO with numbers like those shown above. The premium would need to be ridiculous, in the range of your investment at least.
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.
Its possible but wont really be that easy because your primary concern to be considered first is on legality or regulation.No insurance company would take on for such very risky investment.
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.
Jump to: