I can not follow you here as Malta Gaming Authority issues only gambling licenses? Or requested Unikrn separately an ICO license at Malthese authorities or in other countries?
If ICOs need licenses depends on the laws of a country and there are surely a lot of countries that do not ask for licenses.
Topic: Do ICO's need licenses? - page 4. (Read 3057 times)
I think that licensing of the ICO process can play a rather positive role in reducing the risks of fraud, because the whole team will be identified before that. The main thing is that the state does not interfere in the technical side of this process and does not give its conclusion about the need to implement a particular project.
I agree with Irvinn. It will have a positive impact in terms of scams and such. And yea, if they don't interfere witht he technical aspect, that would great. However, to navigate that kind of path will be difficult as every ICO and token are different.
Seems to benefit unikoingold though. Their sale is 10 hours away from ending and they've already raised 111,000ETH. All the props to them for getting the license and raising this much tho
I think that in the future this will heip to avoid fraud
no,they don't at the moment
that was on of the reasons for the China's ICO ban
there were no rules regulating them ,so the goverment decided to ban it altogether to prevent capital flight from the country
but seeing the boom of the ICOs and the ever growing number of people involved in it
goverments will be forced to do something about it,regulating,banning etc. since there are too many scam ICOs out there
that was on of the reasons for the China's ICO ban
there were no rules regulating them ,so the goverment decided to ban it altogether to prevent capital flight from the country
but seeing the boom of the ICOs and the ever growing number of people involved in it
goverments will be forced to do something about it,regulating,banning etc. since there are too many scam ICOs out there
There's no implemented rules about licensing ICOs yet. But hopefully government do this to protect investors from being scammed by these ICOs. From that, both sides will get benefits from it. ICOs will not be prohited once government issues license for them because they will probably comply with terms and regulations of the government. Investors will not be hesitant to spill their money from them because ICOs will be now monitored by the government. If they do something bad. They pay for that. They don't have yo ban ICOs. They just have to set parameters. So it's still under control. Just like exchanges.
I'm convinced ICOs will be regulated everywhere very soon, the same way IPOs are. It's only logic since both offerings pursue the same goal (raise capital for a new business), from the same kind of investors (you and me).
In coming time either among this, 2 things may happen firstly they may either ban totally ICO and they will not have any rights to raise money or else they will give licences and the company raising ICO will have to file for licence and once its being approved then only it can raise and might be the money would be deposited in the escrow account for safety reasons.
If they want more investors they definitely need some licences. It is more of marketing strategy and those legal actions is worth the effort to convinced those who are doubtful on ICO since the image of it is being painted black when the huge of its kind is scamming here.
It also shows the seriousness and sincerity of the team behind it and that extra layer of assurance can make a big difference.
It also shows the seriousness and sincerity of the team behind it and that extra layer of assurance can make a big difference.
I am not generalizing all but having a license is not always a basis for a legit business. And yes it depends on marketing strategy and offcourse long term investment. it is not always their is profit on the earlier days of the company. It is not also easy for new cryptocurrencies to rise above others are their are releases almost everyday. And sometimes doing the same thing over and over is kind of boredom and thats when they would start doing something shady.
You have a point that license is not a basis for they’re legitimacy but the same point that to have one is more profitable than have nothing. In crypto world even we are intended to decentralized those who give bad light to it must present sincerity or security to they’re future investors.
Being boredom is not a reason to do things suspicious and shady as you mentioned that’s should be discourage. This ICO scamming should be stopped even before it start.
If they want more investors they definitely need some licences. It is more of marketing strategy and those legal actions is worth the effort to convinced those who are doubtful on ICO since the image of it is being painted black when the huge of its kind is scamming here.
It also shows the seriousness and sincerity of the team behind it and that extra layer of assurance can make a big difference.
It also shows the seriousness and sincerity of the team behind it and that extra layer of assurance can make a big difference.
I am not generalizing all but having a license is not always a basis for a legit business. And yes it depends on marketing strategy and offcourse long term investment. it is not always their is profit on the earlier days of the company. It is not also easy for new cryptocurrencies to rise above others are their are releases almost everyday. And sometimes doing the same thing over and over is kind of boredom and thats when they would start doing something shady.
If they want more investors they definitely need some licences. It is more of marketing strategy and those legal actions is worth the effort to convinced those who are doubtful on ICO since the image of it is being painted black when the huge of its kind is scamming here.
It also shows the seriousness and sincerity of the team behind it and that extra layer of assurance can make a big difference.
It also shows the seriousness and sincerity of the team behind it and that extra layer of assurance can make a big difference.
I'm convinced ICOs will be regulated everywhere very soon, the same way IPOs are. It's only logic since both offerings pursue the same goal (raise capital for a new business), from the same kind of investors (you and me).
I guess it would depend on the country and their legal view of bitcoin. Some may legalize bitcoin but would not require licenses for ICOs because they have not recognized or legalized it. In the future, jurisdictions will stipulate or make some regulations for ICOs because of the numerous scams and frauds. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens so actions such as this will be done. I agree that it will most probably be regulated just like how IPOs are.
I'm convinced ICOs will be regulated everywhere very soon, the same way IPOs are. It's only logic since both offerings pursue the same goal (raise capital for a new business), from the same kind of investors (you and me).
Lately there's been a lot of talk about regulation. What about ICO's?
What do you see with the ones complying with governments? It seems to be a big play longevity wise.
For ex. Unikrn got their Malta license, making esports fiat wagering legal in most of europe. Does this pave the way for future ico's? Should this be an indicator of a good, trustworthy ico?
More info: https://www.coindesk.com/regulated-cryptocurrency-betting-just-got-big-boost-europe/
I think that it is more or less, up to the governing bodies of each country, state, or province to decide exactly what criteria, and area these offerings fit into. In the U.S, depending on how the token is issued, and what terms are given by the company offering the tokens, an ICO could end up being held as a security token, which would acquire you to be an accredited investor, in order to participate in the offering, but you see, each countries laws will vary. What do you see with the ones complying with governments? It seems to be a big play longevity wise.
For ex. Unikrn got their Malta license, making esports fiat wagering legal in most of europe. Does this pave the way for future ico's? Should this be an indicator of a good, trustworthy ico?
More info: https://www.coindesk.com/regulated-cryptocurrency-betting-just-got-big-boost-europe/
I think that regulations should be passed in order to give more guidance on how to proceed legally through these workings.
Lately there's been a lot of talk about regulation. What about ICO's?
What do you see with the ones complying with governments? It seems to be a big play longevity wise.
For ex. Unikrn got their Malta license, making esports fiat wagering legal in most of europe. Does this pave the way for future ico's? Should this be an indicator of a good, trustworthy ico?
More info: https://www.coindesk.com/regulated-cryptocurrency-betting-just-got-big-boost-europe/
What do you see with the ones complying with governments? It seems to be a big play longevity wise.
For ex. Unikrn got their Malta license, making esports fiat wagering legal in most of europe. Does this pave the way for future ico's? Should this be an indicator of a good, trustworthy ico?
More info: https://www.coindesk.com/regulated-cryptocurrency-betting-just-got-big-boost-europe/
it depends on the type of token, and the industry. it seems like those guys got a license to gamble/esport; i wonder will it be required to register as a fund collecting entity with ones repsective government. these ICOs have undoubtedly been used to wash tainted coins; fuck a mixer, you can get a whole different type of coin, with little to nothing in the way of AML/KYC. if people are going to be conduits for this much money, they will have to behave as money transmitters, as essentially they are acting as a currency exchanger.
we wont like bitcoin so much after they have their way with it. but, it will be ready for mainstream and here to stay once that happens.
but security tokens need a license so far. utility tokens, not so much.
I think that licensing of the ICO process can play a rather positive role in reducing the risks of fraud, because the whole team will be identified before that. The main thing is that the state does not interfere in the technical side of this process and does not give its conclusion about the need to implement a particular project.
I think it can be a big advantage since a lot of gvmts are indecisive, but once they make a decision, most ico's will be affected if not wiped out. I think a lot of people don't realize how volatile ico's can be and very dependent on legislation and laws.
Second, looked into unikoin and the license combines with Mark Cuban and advisors made then a trustworthy ico in my book.
Second, looked into unikoin and the license combines with Mark Cuban and advisors made then a trustworthy ico in my book.
Lately there's been a lot of talk about regulation. What about ICO's?
What do you see with the ones complying with governments? It seems to be a big play longevity wise.
For ex. Unikrn got their Malta license, making esports fiat wagering legal in most of europe. Does this pave the way for future ico's? Should this be an indicator of a good, trustworthy ico?
More info: https://www.coindesk.com/regulated-cryptocurrency-betting-just-got-big-boost-europe/
What do you see with the ones complying with governments? It seems to be a big play longevity wise.
For ex. Unikrn got their Malta license, making esports fiat wagering legal in most of europe. Does this pave the way for future ico's? Should this be an indicator of a good, trustworthy ico?
More info: https://www.coindesk.com/regulated-cryptocurrency-betting-just-got-big-boost-europe/
Jump to: