It takes kyc in the implementation of ICO, so far all sales have been based on random and anonymous investors
I think it is necessary to create a license to choose a quality project. But keep in mind if the licensors come from the government
the enthusiasm will be slightly reduced because it will be taxed for each investment.
Topic: Do ICO's need licenses? (Read 3086 times)
Yes they need a license to get more investors and this is one of the advantages of a company to get trust of many people and they invest confidently. But there are some icos showing their fake license to lure investors to buy their coin and their main purpose is to scam.
They can make fake licenses but anyone can still make further research to know if it was legit or not. For example, any citizen from their country can quickly determine that and warned all possible investors of that ICO.
Yes they need a license to get more investors and this is one of the advantages of a company to get trust of many people and they invest confidently. But there are some icos showing their fake license to lure investors to buy their coin and their main purpose is to scam.
ICO's is the new IPO therefore it should be regulated and pass different qualifications. As ICO's gaining popularity, SEC and regulators are eyeing their moves and schemes. In order to have a wider acceptance in the community transparency must be implemented and observed and no one is exempted.
ICOs are totally not regulated structures and they haven't any licenses for the activity as you can suppose. That's why many of economist call those people who invest in ICOs as fools, cause of there is no a protect and any guarantees. I think ICOs are those things that ruin bitcoin and make people think that crypto currencies are just a pyramid. That is that thing on which the government should pay the attention, but not just admit everything about digital currencies as illegal.
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 think this is a good idea, Ico complying license will reduce the the fraud . And this is much better advantage for us as investors.
The ICO that has license will sure be more reliable to the one that doesn't have , so this must be implemented ..
If you guys do have any suggestio or opinion let me know . But for me this is a good idea and must be implemented.
The ICO that has license will sure be more reliable to the one that doesn't have , so this must be implemented ..
If you guys do have any suggestio or opinion let me know . But for me this is a good idea and must be implemented.
Absolutely! I will be happy if an ICO require a licence and also if they need to report to the regulators of their respective countries. It will certainly reduce the fraud and bring back the trust in crypto currency market. ICO market has now become very liquid like ponzi market. Which is why a lot of investors are reluctant to invest in ICOs. A licence and a reporting requirement will help to Change the current picture.
I believe that ICO licensing should be mandatory. This will significantly reduce the number of scammers. Now anyone can organize the ICO and deceive investors, so it should not continue any longer.
I think this is a good idea, Ico complying license will reduce the the fraud . And this is much better advantage for us as investors.
The ICO that has license will sure be more reliable to the one that doesn't have , so this must be implemented ..
If you guys do have any suggestio or opinion let me know . But for me this is a good idea and must be implemented.
The ICO that has license will sure be more reliable to the one that doesn't have , so this must be implemented ..
If you guys do have any suggestio or opinion let me know . But for me this is a good idea and must be implemented.
Absolutely! I will be happy if an ICO require a licence and also if they need to report to the regulators of their respective countries. It will certainly reduce the fraud and bring back the trust in crypto currency market. ICO market has now become very liquid like ponzi market. Which is why a lot of investors are reluctant to invest in ICOs. A licence and a reporting requirement will help to Change the current picture.
I think this is a good idea, Ico complying license will reduce the the fraud . And this is much better advantage for us as investors.
The ICO that has license will sure be more reliable to the one that doesn't have , so this must be implemented ..
If you guys do have any suggestio or opinion let me know . But for me this is a good idea and must be implemented.
The ICO that has license will sure be more reliable to the one that doesn't have , so this must be implemented ..
If you guys do have any suggestio or opinion let me know . But for me this is a good idea and must be implemented.
After some ICO's that just turned into scam and is a way to make more money for the people behind it, there should be regulation for it but the thing is that how they can be regulated and distributed a license for it?
In China, ICO's were banned because of that reason. They had mentioned that these fund raising are illegal and something that will threaten their entire economy.
The only way to license these ICO's is if the country where the owners / developers of these projects are living in a country that has strict rule for ICO.
There is a discussion about this from theymos, take a look https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ico-certification-service-needed-2070397 the points of getting a certification or making their business registered first.
In China, ICO's were banned because of that reason. They had mentioned that these fund raising are illegal and something that will threaten their entire economy.
The only way to license these ICO's is if the country where the owners / developers of these projects are living in a country that has strict rule for ICO.
There is a discussion about this from theymos, take a look https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ico-certification-service-needed-2070397 the points of getting a certification or making their business registered first.
Cryptocurrency's are decentralized, ico should get the same status
I think a lot of people would comply with regulatory structures even if they don't HAVE to. The compliance could be used to make their ICO more appealing to the more "traditional" investment infrastructures in our society.
It's just a search for your target audience. Marketing move. Some on the contrary position themselves as fighters with the system.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/
I think a lot of people would comply with regulatory structures even if they don't HAVE to. The compliance could be used to make their ICO more appealing to the more "traditional" investment infrastructures in our society.
At the moment, residents of countries in which the conduct of ICO need a license just baned in ICO 
I'm sorry I couldn't catch all the opinions, but in my view some regulations are needed for ICOs. It's not about limiting the magnitude of initial coin offerings, but making them more transparent and even attractive cautious investors. Banning ICOs is obviously an extremely poor solution; yet a form of ground rules would be crucial for the success of the future offerings.
Banning them would really be pointless.Just like on what china did on such decision they do ban but later on they would comeback and require it to be legalize because they do see that they can able to make money on those things which banning isnt really a solution and i would rather agree on making them regulated which i do really see the positive effects if this thing would really be implemented. It would really lessen the risk of scam ICO since they are been asked or its compulsory to comply with the rules that have been set out.
I'm sorry I couldn't catch all the opinions, but in my view some regulations are needed for ICOs. It's not about limiting the magnitude of initial coin offerings, but making them more transparent and even attractive cautious investors. Banning ICOs is obviously an extremely poor solution; yet a form of ground rules would be crucial for the success of the future offerings.
Most of the companies should approach the government and start forcing the government to legalize the CryptoCurrency because if they kept delaying many ICO's without any innovation they will start raising the money. The government should involve in this ICO for better future to the companies and to the investors.
The companies will never do that. Most of the ICOs are scam (almost 90-95% are scam). So why they force the gov to legalize their work? They will never want their ICO to be regulated.
indeed the cause why china banning ICO because too many ICO scams available currently and with licenses i think it will ensure people funds secure but cryptocurrencies purposse based on anonymity and i don't think this is will effective and people probably doesn't so like ICO project with lisences by the government
A licenses will bring lots of investors to the cryptocurrency market.
The answer to this question depends on the ICO, their token and underlying products. Registration requirements could range from zero to crazy hard (eg creating a crypto/fiat) bank.
indeed the cause why china banning ICO because too many ICO scams available currently and with licenses i think it will ensure people funds secure but cryptocurrencies purposse based on anonymity and i don't think this is will effective and people probably doesn't so like ICO project with lisences by the government
License is not, but a registration would be mandatory for them, since so many are starting with a small amount of money, a script, web-host, graphics, etc. So many Govts are not looking these scam ICO's including our Country India to arrest them and put in jail.
I hope in the next year 2018 Governments will take care of these scam ICO's.
I hope in the next year 2018 Governments will take care of these scam ICO's.
I think it's time for any ICO to have a licenses before they start operating these projects. It's like anyone who wants to make their own definition of "best" or "the future" coins can now do it easily and just run away after investors put large money in it.
I don´t think that a complete regulation with all sorts of difficulties should be created, but basic guidelines should be created and some registration be done, like I said before, not to generate government control, otherwise the very essence of the free world of the blockchain would be corrupted, but to avoid scammers who could be washed out naturally and give the investors, mainly those who are coming to know the crypto investment space have some security when investing their hard earned money. Noted though, that these guidelines should be done by blockchain experts and investors.
It depends on how your government welcomes these ICOs. You should know that governments from around the world treat ICOs differently. As they say, different strokes for different folks. You would have to check on your respective governments on how they control the proliferation of ICOs because it is them who have the legal authority to decide on matters that affect public interest.
I don´t think that a complete regulation with all sorts of difficulties should be created, but basic guidelines should be created and some registration be done, like I said before, not to generate government control, otherwise the very essence of the free world of the blockchain would be corrupted, but to avoid scammers who could be washed out naturally and give the investors, mainly those who are coming to know the crypto investment space have some security when investing their hard earned money. Noted though, that these guidelines should be done by blockchain experts and investors.
Licenses mean you will have real company and activity under taxes law but virtual money not agree with bitcoin so till now we can use bitcoin digital only
I do not think ICOs need a license, but the license is not entirely unnecessary. China's prejudices may be resolved with a license. After all, every state wants to keep all things under their control.
They don't need licenses in general. But countries may require them sometime in the future. I know the US is in the process of passing legislation.
Honestly though, I would be more likely to invest in ICOs that have some kind of official permit. That would make it harder for them to run off, which has been rampant among ICOs since their inception.
Honestly though, I would be more likely to invest in ICOs that have some kind of official permit. That would make it harder for them to run off, which has been rampant among ICOs since their inception.
Most of the companies should approach the government and start forcing the government to legalize the CryptoCurrency because if they kept delaying many ICO's without any innovation they will start raising the money. The government should involve in this ICO for better future to the companies and to the investors.
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/
This must be a necessary for all ICO's to be required to operate with license so that their is assurance for the people that the sites in which they will pour their investments are safe and secured and that their hard earned money will not be lost. By regulating, the ICO will be determine if legit or not because they will be required to submit of lot of necessary documents to prove the legitimacy of their business.
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/
This must be a necessary for all ICO's to be required to operate with license so that their is assurance for the people that the sites in which they will pour their investments are safe and secured and that their hard earned money will not be lost. By regulating, the ICO will be determine if legit or not because they will be required to submit of lot of necessary documents to prove the legitimacy of their business.
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/
No this will then ruin the whole concept of decentralization.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 donot see they need one.
Like eth its donot have any license still the top ico till today.
We need to actually look at the projects an ico is doing and then determine its good or bad.
I think that the activity of the ICO should be subject to licensing because recently the number of ICOs with fraudulent elements has sharply increased and investors began to suffer from this. Licensing of this type of activity should help reduce such risks. Then the investors' confidence in the ICO will be restored.
Regulations are not (only) there for harassing companies, but for protecting customers. Right now there is noone to protect customers which is why there is SO much scam going on. Therefore yes: ICOs should need licenses or at least regulation.
they should all need to register at least, I agree with you completely but would like to point out the utility token ICOs. if they actually are that and not a security in sheeps clothing. with no promise of profit, these are pretty much like a traditional crowdsale, they are essentially giving you "store points" that you can redeem later up the road map. would be like if walmart had an ico, and gave people walmart giftcards instead of tokens.
but in all cases, you shouldnt be able to collect that much capital without registering with the gov some kind of way. what if an ico is like a front for isis, and we send them 10milli?
I wouldn't talk down crowdfunding, lots of scam there as well. That's why many European countries have crowdfunding laws implemented by now. I want to see something similar for ICOs.
I think it's compulsory for every ICO to register and get their own license before they can announce their ICO to the public.
Also, these ICOs need to be regulated and observe by the "Securities Commission" to protect investors from being scammed by scammers.
Also, these ICOs need to be regulated and observe by the "Securities Commission" to protect investors from being scammed by scammers.
Licenses are important to know how sincere does the specific company is.. It’s more of showing your future client that your doing anything for they’re satisfaction and for they’re security.. It’s also a precautionary action on dealing with legality in thing.. Some might not even wanted to get licence for the first place is something shady for me..
Regulations are not (only) there for harassing companies, but for protecting customers. Right now there is noone to protect customers which is why there is SO much scam going on. Therefore yes: ICOs should need licenses or at least regulation.
they should all need to register at least, I agree with you completely but would like to point out the utility token ICOs. if they actually are that and not a security in sheeps clothing. with no promise of profit, these are pretty much like a traditional crowdsale, they are essentially giving you "store points" that you can redeem later up the road map. would be like if walmart had an ico, and gave people walmart giftcards instead of tokens.
but in all cases, you shouldnt be able to collect that much capital without registering with the gov some kind of way. what if an ico is like a front for isis, and we send them 10milli?
Regulations are not (only) there for harassing companies, but for protecting customers. Right now there is noone to protect customers which is why there is SO much scam going on. Therefore yes: ICOs should need licenses or at least regulation.
If for security and good for the investors then it would be nice that ICO's have licenses to have to so that in case that it would just run from investors and just collect monies they have a way to get what they invested for. I think these kind of topic has a solution from now and I heard that a company from Russia called IRI has proposed to launch a platform to list all ICO's and all the the individuals that composed it to ensure its not scam one and if they try to run from investors that platform has records they have if just in case it would happen.
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/
Regarding on longevity then regulation would really make some changes compared into those non regulated ones since both investors and its owners will really have the transparency since its being regulated already.If we do try to see now there are lots of Scam projects which results on ending up badly on its investors.This is why im already hesitant on making investment or putting up money.They should really be regulated to lessen the risk on losing too much money on putting up on useless things. 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/
this is a good idea, as now aa are created even without white paper and a new idea, in order to quickly earn the money they earn! so there can be less stupid projects and stupid investors
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/
ICO is a very controversial way to raise money and a majority of the ICOs are not trusted. I have seen many ICOs raised funds from the market but didn't deliver the final product which was promised at the initial stage of the ICO. So I strongly believe that ICOs need to be regulated big time. Otherwise, the crypto market will loose its reputation to a handful of scammers.
I believe, a proper license and regulation will bring back the trust in ICO market and more investment will flow in to it. Having new idea is a good thing and raising fund for any idea is a welcoming move. The the company should also maintain their integrity which is currently lacking. So even if License is not mandatory for many countries, but it is a good to have thing.
As for me, generally, no. But since it is a form of investment, I guess there is a need for some regulation to protect the investors' from other introductory coins that are fraudulent. I think anything that does not have a regulation with it is prone to abuses thus the need for a regulation that does not completely restrict growth and development. In short, a regulation that is just fitting to the needs of investors and the public in general.
ICO's have very positive future. If not regulated it could bring both clash and cash. Some ICO's has very short lifespan, in this point of view they should be regulated to avoid lose of investor's money, but when they began to be trustworthy they should be free floated, unregulated and free from govt. hand.
As Bitcoin became successful as free float crypto currency, all the ICO's should have their chances at some sort of point.
As Bitcoin became successful as free float crypto currency, all the ICO's should have their chances at some sort of point.
Some of ICO may not require any license at all as we can see for example : China decide ban ICO because they like gambling site, it's too risk for people to invest as they did not operate using license.
Even if they operated with license, the government also need to monitor any ICO activity !
Even if they operated with license, the government also need to monitor any ICO activity !
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/
The government will required ICO to have a license for sure if the digital currency will be completely regulated. The main purpose of regulating is to ensure the safety and the welfare of the people including the nations from fraud and scams therefore any ICO that will lead an digital currency marketing should be required a legal documents so that they can be strictly monitored by the government.
I think what's missing from ico's and them forming so quickly is regulation. Regardless there should be some third party or qualifications for ico's to pass before launching and 99% of them scamming people. It's too easy to scam people too. Make a legit looking whitepaper, build a nice custom site, and spread it like wildfire. No one does their research anyways. Licenses should exist.
I've been watching unikoin for weeks and it only looks better that they got their license. Gambling or not, they are killing it. Plus, getting more creidbility looks better for investors and just people in general. They cared enough to go get a license.
I've been watching unikoin for weeks and it only looks better that they got their license. Gambling or not, they are killing it. Plus, getting more creidbility looks better for investors and just people in general. They cared enough to go get a license.
it's a real truth. i mean scamming people.but ok, what kind lawyers will give licenses?what agencies?this is a huge problem.that is the question.
I don´t believe that should be regulated like the present IPOs, but some basic regulation would be healthy for the market since that would avoid scams and we as investors would benefit from some verification. But completely regulation would probably take good opportunities form the market if these regulations wouldn´t be done guided by an expert from an insider of the cryptocurrency space because most governments are full of policies based on politics and they are unaware of the methods and attributes of the ICO projects.
ICO пocлeднee вpeмя,oчeнь пepcпeктивнaя тeмa
We are prohibited from collecting money as we would like for any business, and there are rules for collecting money from people. It should be checked whether the money collected in ICOs is used for the job and whether the given promises are fulfilled. Digital funds invested by project investors have become garbage because the money collected in many projects does not use to develop the project. Getting a license to do ICO is not enough, but it may be an advantage to attract more investors.
Depends which country and industry it is registered in.
Of course they needed to be licensed, If the Government will not be able to verify and licensed such a business crowd sourcing event then it is considered illegal and Scam. Licenses from Government will also make a risk-free on trusting the ICO because the Government acknowledged it's authenticity.
Just as with IPOs, there should also be regulations for ICOs because generally they are similar. It should be imposed so as to have some control and to avoid frauds and scams. Also, if licenses were issued it would encourage the investors because it would contribute to the legitimacy of an ICO. However, most jurisdictions have not made any specifications in their law because it may not be recognized yet. Some countries may not even recognized the presence of it.
full member
Activity: 364
Merit: 118
Bounty Campaign Manager? --> https://goo.gl/YRVVt3
Of course they needed to be licensed, If the Government will not be able to verify and licensed such a business crowd sourcing event then it is considered illegal and Scam. Licenses from Government will also make a risk-free on trusting the ICO because the Government acknowledged it's authenticity.
If you are really sure to do business well you really to comply for those licenses to fully and legally operate, and i think this is a great factor for your ICO so investors will surely the project is legit.
ICOs are IPOs in digital coin form. Of course they need licenses to operate, ICOs/IPOs are crowd sourcing for a business/product, and Businesses needs licenses to operate as well, some countries ban this because it may result to fraud which is acceptable and justifiable. You can see that the Government on each country, sees ICOs as IPOs and they are handling ICOs as they handle IPOs.
I agree^
This is the best way to prevent scams. Just the other day I saw someone offering services to start your own ico on fiverr for $95 LOL.
This is a great move for unikoingold because they have so many investors interested and a lot of eyes on them.
In legal perspective, I will go for licensing my ICO if I was one of the owner. Sadly because for many controversy that ICO is dramatically facing right now, the September banning from China to South Korea and scamming investors by ICO team left and right. For them that investors bring back confidence by a licence is a must.
It will not present as legal or legit ICO project but it will surely help more than no license at all.
It will not present as legal or legit ICO project but it will surely help more than no license at all.
ICOs are IPOs in digital coin form. Of course they need licenses to operate, ICOs/IPOs are crowd sourcing for a business/product, and Businesses needs licenses to operate as well, some countries ban this because it may result to fraud which is acceptable and justifiable. You can see that the Government on each country, sees ICOs as IPOs and they are handling ICOs as they handle IPOs.
In unikoingold's case, it helps them differentiate from their competition. Another factor I think is that they're such a big platform already, so they are just trying to be safe. Big players are the ones that move.
I think what's missing from ico's and them forming so quickly is regulation. Regardless there should be some third party or qualifications for ico's to pass before launching and 99% of them scamming people. It's too easy to scam people too. Make a legit looking whitepaper, build a nice custom site, and spread it like wildfire. No one does their research anyways. Licenses should exist.
I've been watching unikoin for weeks and it only looks better that they got their license. Gambling or not, they are killing it. Plus, getting more creidbility looks better for investors and just people in general. They cared enough to go get a license.
I've been watching unikoin for weeks and it only looks better that they got their license. Gambling or not, they are killing it. Plus, getting more creidbility looks better for investors and just people in general. They cared enough to go get a license.
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.
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.
It's a gambling license I believe. I think what this brings to light is whether ico's should pursue licenses for validity and credibility.
And on the flipside, should governments/countries have qualifications for valid ico's.
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
This is why they do really do propose such thing and China did able to make the first step which it did able to spark up the possibilities for ICO to be regulated in able for them to control specially on the funds of those investors came from their country.They cant stop the funds flowing out because investors do tend to invest on those ICO back in the past they do really saw on what would be the effects if this thing would still go further. Licensing would really have some advantages for those people who do really love the legality and yet it is somehow give assurance when it comes to security. 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
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.
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.
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: