I think that we need to chouse project for investing with with zealousness, since you can not only lose money but also give your nifty to unnecessary people!
Investing into cryptocurrencies market during icos has proven to be one of the most scamming way of investing. Billions of dollars has been invested into projects that did not exist any were except in the imagination of the fakes developers. I personally has lose money investing into many projects that turned out to be scam or abandon. Cryptocoins market is not security and before you invest into it please seek professional advice. 
Topic: Do you think all ICO are securities ? (Read 794 times)
Securities ? Huh ? you mean to say secure ? Well no they were not . ico's are not secure and infact most of them were actually risky because they are only online with no physical offices that you can go whenever you want to inquire for for more details regarding on their project .
Although there are still fewer ico's left that are secure or more legit because they are compose of a real team with a serious plan in order to serve the people with a good service .
While I'm a fan of BTC and a few Pow coins with zero premine/dev holdings, almost all of these "ICO" "offerings" are utter garbage. Trash. Worthless.
The term "securities" lends way to much credit as to their real worth and stature in the business world.
Unsecurities is more like it.
The term "securities" lends way to much credit as to their real worth and stature in the business world.
Unsecurities is more like it.
current ICOs are not securities. but security token offerings (STOs ) are coming on the blockchain soon. ownership of real world assets on the blockchain is upon us.
https://coinweez.com/tokenization-on-blockchain/
Here is my brilliant opinion, for me all fo the ICO's would not be considered as securities for a lot of fo reasons to tell. First of all, it is all decentralized. The blockchain made it possible for the people to have these ICO's. This is a full risk. Since not every ICOs will go successful, I would consider ICO's as another type of gambling.https://coinweez.com/tokenization-on-blockchain/
There is no general answer to this question. Each jurisdiction has its own view on whether tokens offered in an ICO are securities or some other kind of financial instrument. Certain tokens might not even be regulated in some jurisdictions. While the SEC dominates the discussions at the moment, there are good reasons to take a look at regulators in other jurisdictions.
There is one more thing you should consider. Just because you are compliant in one jurisdiction, it does not mean that you can sell your tokens compliantly in other jurisdictions. Let's say your token is not regulated in Singapore, but you intend to sell it to investors from the US, you must comply with US regulations. The same is true for any other jurisdiction in which you target investors.
There is one more thing you should consider. Just because you are compliant in one jurisdiction, it does not mean that you can sell your tokens compliantly in other jurisdictions. Let's say your token is not regulated in Singapore, but you intend to sell it to investors from the US, you must comply with US regulations. The same is true for any other jurisdiction in which you target investors.
Securities ? Huh ? you mean to say secure ? Well no they were not . ico's are not secure and infact most of them were actually risky because they are only online with no physical offices that you can go whenever you want to inquire for for more details regarding on their project .
Although there are still fewer ico's left that are secure or more legit because they are compose of a real team with a serious plan in order to serve the people with a good service .
current ICOs are not securities. but security token offerings (STOs ) are coming on the blockchain soon. ownership of real world assets on the blockchain is upon us.
https://coinweez.com/tokenization-on-blockchain/
https://coinweez.com/tokenization-on-blockchain/
The ICO model that offers security tokens, brings a lot of questions when it comes to the legal part. Based on the legal view, security tokens are explained very different in comparison of what we think of them now.
https://coincodex.com/article/2465/what-is-the-howey-test-and-how-is-it-relevant-to-crypto/
https://coincodex.com/article/2465/what-is-the-howey-test-and-how-is-it-relevant-to-crypto/
I really think the market Crypto at current is not securities.
But in the not so distant future it will change completely. One day the SEC going accept Bitcoin ETF and more Altcoin...
But in the not so distant future it will change completely. One day the SEC going accept Bitcoin ETF and more Altcoin...
No, there are a lot of different kind of token, each jurisdiction will stabilish it! Law of MAlta are different than Swiss law.. different from US law... there's no only U.S. SEC!!!
I don't think any of the icos are securities and alot need to be done in future before we can make significant progress on that. Icos need to be approved by sec before people should invest in as a lot is currently happening in the market.
I think only some ICOs are securities. Others are pure platforms for decentralized APPS, like Ethereum and EOS. Some ICOs like OPU provides a specter of solutions in a specific industry, in OPU case it is skincare. And of course don’t forget about cryptocurrencies that are pure substitute for fiat money. Hope that helps.
https://www.coindesk.com/no-not-icos-securities/
This article brings to light that all ICO's are Not securities, I personally don't think any of them fit into the SEC square box nicely of how they define one. This is a completely new and different asset class and should be treated as one when it comes to regulation. I find it ironic that there is a Securities forum to chat on here, are we trying to support uncle Sam or take him down with this forum?
I think icos are not secure and many investors including me has lost money in investing into unsecured icos. I think governments has to come in to straighten some things in cryptocurrencies especially the hackers and icos scammers. This article brings to light that all ICO's are Not securities, I personally don't think any of them fit into the SEC square box nicely of how they define one. This is a completely new and different asset class and should be treated as one when it comes to regulation. I find it ironic that there is a Securities forum to chat on here, are we trying to support uncle Sam or take him down with this forum?
Fraud, scum, sleazy founders? Sure...
I have been working in IT company which help to launch ICO and as the staff behind the scenes, I can always tell a scum from a real thing. It's enough to just examine the whitepaper or discuss the project with the client. But, you know, money is money - we don't say no even if we see that the project will end up as a deceit (and, believe us, we're are not alone in our pragmatism). Nor we expose those who don't want to be exposed - some business rules cannot be broken.
Yet, believe or not, accomplishing such projects doesn't feel fine. We're interested in truthful ICOs and honest investees. We honestly believe in a better future of the ICO and we would like to be on the right side when it arrives. Finally, we take care of our reputation. And, as you must have already noticed, we're making ourselves a bit of an ad.
That's where out motivation comes from.
Getting Wrong Things Right
Many, primarily those who've already succeeded in losing money, prefer blaming ICO creators, governments, blockchain - in short everything and everyone except for themselves.
We don't agree. Not a single ICO cap has been achieved with a gun put to the investor's head. Folks voluntarily give money to a random guy on the Internet, whose fault is that?
According to the latest statistics, only about 40% of the cryptocurrency investors bother themselves with merely reading the whitepaper - the alpha and omega of any crowdfunding activity. What it means is that more than a half of those who contribute their money have no idea about who is the one they're dealing with or what it is he's going to attempt.
Look at this. Guys had excellent fun (and also largely inspired this article) while still raising real money. $247,300 according to their own website, more realistic but still impressive $80,520 according to this stat.
The simplicity, openness and lack of regulation in the area indeed fuel the flames, but they are barely the source. The greediness and go-happy-lucky attitude of the "investors" seems like a more realistic answer.
To prove this predictably unpopular point, some examples of how dubious affairs helped not particularly discerning people to lose millions in the past should be introduced.
Read more here: http://bit.ly/2N05CYk
I have been working in IT company which help to launch ICO and as the staff behind the scenes, I can always tell a scum from a real thing. It's enough to just examine the whitepaper or discuss the project with the client. But, you know, money is money - we don't say no even if we see that the project will end up as a deceit (and, believe us, we're are not alone in our pragmatism). Nor we expose those who don't want to be exposed - some business rules cannot be broken.
Yet, believe or not, accomplishing such projects doesn't feel fine. We're interested in truthful ICOs and honest investees. We honestly believe in a better future of the ICO and we would like to be on the right side when it arrives. Finally, we take care of our reputation. And, as you must have already noticed, we're making ourselves a bit of an ad.
That's where out motivation comes from.
Getting Wrong Things Right
Many, primarily those who've already succeeded in losing money, prefer blaming ICO creators, governments, blockchain - in short everything and everyone except for themselves.
We don't agree. Not a single ICO cap has been achieved with a gun put to the investor's head. Folks voluntarily give money to a random guy on the Internet, whose fault is that?
According to the latest statistics, only about 40% of the cryptocurrency investors bother themselves with merely reading the whitepaper - the alpha and omega of any crowdfunding activity. What it means is that more than a half of those who contribute their money have no idea about who is the one they're dealing with or what it is he's going to attempt.
Look at this. Guys had excellent fun (and also largely inspired this article) while still raising real money. $247,300 according to their own website, more realistic but still impressive $80,520 according to this stat.
The simplicity, openness and lack of regulation in the area indeed fuel the flames, but they are barely the source. The greediness and go-happy-lucky attitude of the "investors" seems like a more realistic answer.
To prove this predictably unpopular point, some examples of how dubious affairs helped not particularly discerning people to lose millions in the past should be introduced.
Read more here: http://bit.ly/2N05CYk
https://www.coindesk.com/no-not-icos-securities/
This article brings to light that all ICO's are Not securities, I personally don't think any of them fit into the SEC square box nicely of how they define one. This is a completely new and different asset class and should be treated as one when it comes to regulation. I find it ironic that there is a Securities forum to chat on here, are we trying to support uncle Sam or take him down with this forum?
I think icos are not secure and many investors including me has lost money in investing into unsecured icos. I think governments has to come in to straighten some things in cryptocurrencies especially the hackers and icos scammers. This article brings to light that all ICO's are Not securities, I personally don't think any of them fit into the SEC square box nicely of how they define one. This is a completely new and different asset class and should be treated as one when it comes to regulation. I find it ironic that there is a Securities forum to chat on here, are we trying to support uncle Sam or take him down with this forum?
I think that we will see the end of the far-fetched utility tokens. Not all of them are securities, but even less of them have any utility.
No, I do not think they are 100% secure, but you have to deal with that. Plus, as we are heading forward, I am sure there will be more safer and safer ways to participate in ICOs.
At the end of the day everything can be a securities, if the government wants to enforce it. For example, rewards points from big retail store, ebay, amazon, etc can also be considered a securities, however, the masses have agreed that it is not. Eth and btc are are securites, however, teh SEC have decided (because people are willing to agree that it is not) that they are not securities. So, everything is a security, which can be approved if there is mass adoption and support from the public.
I don't they had any choice in the case of BTC and ETH. Can you imagine that hanging on the books? They could use that violation as an excuse to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to anyone in crypto.
https://www.coindesk.com/no-not-icos-securities/
This article brings to light that all ICO's are Not securities, I personally don't think any of them fit into the SEC square box nicely of how they define one. This is a completely new and different asset class and should be treated as one when it comes to regulation. I find it ironic that there is a Securities forum to chat on here, are we trying to support uncle Sam or take him down with this forum?
I do not think ICOs are securities. Most of them in my opinion, are just mere investment which involve risks because you are paying with no products but are hopeful of the project/ICO to be successful to get big gain from your investments. So in order to have less risky investment in ICOs you have to do your own research, the whitepaper, the team, and the company itself.This article brings to light that all ICO's are Not securities, I personally don't think any of them fit into the SEC square box nicely of how they define one. This is a completely new and different asset class and should be treated as one when it comes to regulation. I find it ironic that there is a Securities forum to chat on here, are we trying to support uncle Sam or take him down with this forum?
Investment = Security. It's a very simple way to look at it. The only ICO I've seen that is not a security is http://myke.ai/whitepaper. And it should be. The value of the token, even after the project is complete, is relative to its prospects.
The conversation needs to move forward: if ICOs are securities, what comes next? Stop worrying about what you can't change, and put energy toward what you can.
The definition of "accredited investor" must change.
Right now, it's not a way to protect people, it's a way to take money from the working class and give it to rich brokers.
I have a weird feeling that these ICO's are ran by the same different groups of people. I see the same faces over and over on all ICOs. I mean, how can you be the ceo of 3 projects in one year. People have a hard time maintain one company
ICO securities not 100% secure, but they try make it more better for the secure. ICO technologies and innovation every years growing.
In the future I sure ICO securities will be more secure. Many ICO will coming up in this year, new different technologies and innovation.
Every year ICO is growing, the innovations and technologies they offer make some investors interested in spending the money. But the problem is, is ICO system is safe? I mean does not lead to scam project? this will always be feared by investors. In the future I sure ICO securities will be more secure. Many ICO will coming up in this year, new different technologies and innovation.
Until now there is no body governing the security ICO, which decided the ICO will run smoothly and every investor will get a profit. Innovation can be designed by scammers and this is very easy to do by them. Cryptocurrency needs full oversight to make the system safe, this is what I always expect forward to in the future.
ICO's has been used by many scammers they just feed up some appealing information,projects and other more just to accumulate more funds for their scam acts and maybe in this case ICO's should really needed to govern by any legal institutions so that those new project cames are trusted and became more reliable.
Jump to: