Author

Topic: discouraging institutional investors by being anonymous? (Read 665 times)

legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114

Being anonymous obviously doesn't help the developers of shitcoins and clones,

Sure it does. It makes it easier for them to get away with successfully launching their next shitcoin.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 506
If developer identity mattered then Mastercoin or another copywright coin like Maidsafe would be #1 crypto right now..

As well anonymity seems to be a requirement.  I keep hearing rumor that Ethereum may never launch due to Canadian laws on crowd funding and securities.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
Bitmark Developer

Being anonymous obviously doesn't help the developers of shitcoins and clones, however does the anonymity factor detract from the work of hard working developers who are making valuable contributions to the community?

Put another way, do institutional investors (within the context of supporting projects or buying aged PoW coins, not IPO/scams/PoS-premines), become deterred if the lead developer of a project is anonymous?

I wonder just how much of a bearing a developers identity has on a project.
Jump to: