Topic: Does a Legal Adviser make an ICO more "legal" and free from scams? (Read 352 times)

Unfortunately, government agencies do not check on these ICO teams even while there have been numerous scams in the past. It's quite problematic for them to routinely check on ICO teams as there are no governing provisions or bodies that will rule over the matter of ICOs, therefore the government has no power of enforcement over them as well. Much needs to be done to protect those engaging in ICO projects.

Also, IMO having a lawyer in a team does not equate to the legitimacy of an ICO team. For all we know, they could just be figureheads just like how people with good credentials are added to contribute to the 'integrity' of an ICO project.

Many times I sent the ICO team a question so that they would respond on the basis of what regulatory act they require that the KYC head-hunters undergo an audit and what exactly is written about these regulations. None of them gave me any answer. From this I conclude that there are no lawyers in the ICO team or they knowingly illegally use the KYC check against us. We are not investors and their customers and should not pass such a test. This is all arbitrariness, violating our rights.
It is very difficult to check whether ICO teams are fraudsters. This should be done by government agencies.

Haha.. I think what a legal officer in a team of ICO will do is to create a level of legality around the project. It will make investors see the project as the one that is legit but I don't think a scamming project will desist from scamming investors.

In fact, a legal officer's support to the project will make investors more gullible to fall for trap of scam if it was destined for scam.

a legal adviser is all good and dandy, but you have to understand that if the project is designed to scam you
it would do everything to pretend legit and hiring a legal adviser is one of the steps to do so
on the other hand , it costs money and most of the scam and "destined to fail" projects save on everything
so the presence of a legal adviser could be a factor, bit not the deciding one
one of the fresh examples- the first blockchain MMORPG ICO called Lordmancer II had a good team of advisers
yet they announced the project is closing and now their tokens are  worthless
in this case it is rather the project failure rather than scam, but legal advisers didn't help in any way

Yes! As these people who are experts on the field of law will surely make a certain project more legit and more trusted that will make project investors to fell secured of their investments. If a certain ICO will not going to rely on these law experts then expect legality issues might arise in the future making your investors might not trust your project.

Considering that most of these legal advisers that are currently active on ICO teams are completely fake, and their identities are in fact fabricated for the ICO, no.

Simply having a legal adviser column on your site's team page doesn't make you any more trustworthy, or more compliant.

I suggest that if you are looking into the legality of the ICo you should still conduct your own research, read their "about us" and their terms and conditions, and use your common sense. Are they professional, are they registered, and do they require KYC? Don't just look at their legal adviser and that's it. If they do have a legal adviser, search him/her up as well to see if they are well known, or just some random guy, and if they are actually affiliated with the project.

True, transparency would always be the thing needed when it comes to ICO investments where investors do feel our security with the funds they have invested on the project but as been said even how legit the advisor it doesnt give any guarantee about success of the project he supported. Anytime the project members itself would always have the chance to ran away.
When talking about ICO im already done to believe that free from scam word is an impossible thing since this do involves money and can change up everything.

Not just several but lots of fake team are on the field now and for one reason,to scam cryptonians just visit the scam accusations section and you’ll find how many of them circulating in our community and this is our job to prevent from being a victim

You’re right about sending emails for a certain company in past work or even the recent can sve our assess but this is not enough since everyone is technologically inclined now so theres no impossible if they can manipulate such things

And regarding to what OP is asking i believe that if the advicer is reputable and legit the possibilities of becoming scam is lesser and might end up to right choice of team

The more important thing is reputation. Without that, its hard to trust.

I don't agree with this. I do understand it is important for us to at least consult with a lawyer or seek for some legal advice, however, I do understand as well that there are only .5% of lawyers and especially in the corporate lawyers are familiar with Cryptocurrency's ambiguous law. If you will seek a piece of legal advice, make sure to look for someone who really understands the law and the market of cryptocurrency for you to have better judgment in ICOs.

There's no guarantee but it makes an ICO more legit if they will show you on how legitimate they are including the legal adviser. The transparency of the team members I think are what the ICO investors are looking at.

I guess it will build confidence if they have a reputable legal adviser but as I've said there's no guarantee because anytime the other members can abandon the project even if they have a reputable legal adviser whom they hired.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/httpswccstandardscom-self-regulation-ethical-cryptocurrency-platform-5100253

Perhaps China and the United States have agreed wholeheartedly on a matter for the first time in their history. You cannot perform Cryptocurrencies activities without permission.   
 
The basis for the "closed" China and "free" America to restrict Cryptocurrencies transactions has been the unfair competition activities experienced in the Cryptocurrencies system (frauds, false information, Cryptocurrency Scams etc.)
 
A bigger loss than the billion dollars the Cryptocurrencies industry has lost due to Unfair Competition, is the several trillions of US dollars which was expected to come in, but only because of the loss of confidence due to unfair competition, that cannot enter the Cryptocurrencies industry.
 
There is only one problem confronting the Cryptocurrencies industry. The Cryptocurrencies industry should determine how and by which means, based on which rules and foundations it will implement its specific commercial rules by self-regulation. It is obvious that self-regulation is the solution. It is also clear that when considered in the legal grounds Cryptocurrencies is software-based industry, and that the software actually does not differ anymore from books, movies, or photography.
 
The fact that the Cryptocurrencies industry's software is mostly qualified as open-source and public domain leads to the conclusion that this industry should be considered as a part of or within the scope of freedom of expression, such as books. Since it is not possible for a payment or exchange instrument in mention subject to an unprohibited form of expression (software) to define itself as a security that is subject to the activity permit before the law, the positioning of local governments themselves as forbidding country or vice versa, as Cryptocurrencies as paradise, will not have any legal response.
 
For example, Malta, declaring to be a Cryptocurrencies-friendly country, issued a fairly comprehensive legislation. However, on the concession agreement of Binance, who has announced that it has moved to Malta and has positioned itself as one of the largest stock exchanges in the field of Cryptocurrencies, the addresses and titles of the company (or persons) that own the market still do not appear.  Let's assume that an investor with an account in Binance, although provided all the necessary conditions, is hacked; in such a case its only legal interlocutor will be a virtual platform whose address or the titles of the executives are unknown. Therefore, a governmental or supra-governmental super-centralized structure, whether it be a Cryptocurrencies-friendly, or a limit-enforcing structure, clearly cannot be a solution. In fact, it is also crystal clear that Malta is not a solution, as explained in this example.
 
The method that will ensure the arrival of trillions of dollars into the Cryptocurrencies industry, and the bases and practices of this method should, in summary, be based on the following principles;
 
•   A governmental or supra-governmental super centralized structure cannot be the solution; first and foremost, this situation is contrary to the constitutions of the free countries and additionally, it contradicts with the open code, open book and centerless features of the Cryptocurrencies system.
 
•   It can only be delusion to expect for trillions of dollars to come to an area where there is unfair competition and trust cannot be provided.
 
•   Self-regulation is the only remedy to prevent unfair competition existing in the Cryptocurrencies system. With the self-regulation system, the Cryptocurrencies industry must determine its own commercial customs and rules (standards).
 
•   However, it is necessary to carefully determine the implementation methods of the self-regulation system. Firstly, the principle of solving justified investor and customer complaints must be accepted as a “prerequisite" standard. In addition, the rule of truthful declaration where the players in the Cryptocurrencies system (according to their license types) each month regularly fill in the digital questionnaires in the platform, so that they will disclose their information to the public in a correct and accurate manner should be considered as the second standard. These two ethical standards will not harm the free and fair structure of the Cryptocurrencies system. On the contrary, the two ethical standards described above will leave those who give false information and bad players that have infiltrated into the world of Cryptocurrency, which cannot solve justified customer complaints out-of-the-game / out-of-the-platform. The basis of this application method can be provided by certificates based on self-regulation system. 
 
•   IP (Intellectual Property) rights, basically, can be said to be incompatible with the free and open-coded system of the Cryptocurrency world. However, the basis of the foundations (simple and ethical rules) that will be established between the players of a self-regulation system, let it be set up according to IP rights or set up according to the contract law, will not change the results. With IP rights, no ownership is granted from the system's open source codes. By taking only two code of ethics as the basis for self-regulation a commitment to compliance will be sought after in order to apply these ethical rules. They convey our open society policy to the public and do not keep the information in its own right. Naturally, the code of ethics cannot have its law or legislation. However, when extraordinary situations are encountered such as the hacking of a crypto stock exchange whose address and identity are inaccessible and losses are not compensated, it is an absolute necessity to be able to answer questions like "Do we have an insurance?" or "where are you located?". Those who do not disclose the most basic information primarily harm our right to access to open society and information.
 
•   What is important here is to enable a neutral, fair implementation structure (platform) to reach up to a model closest to the ideal with warnings and notifications of the Cryptocurrencies industry.

•   One of the critical issues here is how to understand whether the player to enter the platform is honest or not. It is also possible that bad players cannot be detected at the time of the application and that they may infiltrate to the platform (the self-regulating platform). First, the platform will examine all applications very thoroughly. ICOs will require additional commitment and ICO applications without trust and escrow accounts will not be accepted by the platform. Licenses of platform members (licensees) who are not able to resolve unjustified investor complaints or gave false information, will be canceled. However, it is important to note that investors should carefully examine the information disclosed, that this information is declared by the platform participants and that this information may not be accurate. At this point, the seventh aim of the platform (i.e. the damage compensation project of those affected by the licensees) is not yet disclosed. The project to be carried out for this purpose will be announced as a result of the study to be conducted with licensees and WCCS community members. Yet, it is fair to say that it will not cover the past but the future, and its content will be explained in the same way in the future.


The World CryptoCurrency Standards online platform is developped to perform as an indicator to distinguish  the dedicated blockchain crypto projects (Cryptocurrencies, Tokens, Markets, Service Providers and Icos), among inconsistents.

https://wccstandards.com/home (WCCS) itself is an independent platform. WCCS has no relation or conflict of interest with any crypto project or blockchain bussiness. WCCS has no subject on appreciation of any crypto project. As blockchain and crypto enthusiasts, the main purpose of the platform is to stabilize the valuation of crypto world; by validating transparency and reliabiity of the applying Crypto projects.

WCCStandards.com is the only solution to the question of how the CC system can defend itself against the attacks claiming that it is an unreliable bubble. We are saying, if the Crypto Eco-system manages itself to be more transparent and project-dedicated, than it will automatically regulate itself against speculation and manipulation. Therefore potentially there would be no need for governmental regulations.

Many Crypto actors in the world of Cryptocurrencies (CC) don't bother themselves to indicate their project headquarters.

The decentralized, P2P, open-source software terms is the soul of the Crypto Eco-system but those terms are so much twisted and used by the Crypto Project Holders to cover their responsibilities and identities to Crypto Eco-system.

The responsibility of a Crypto Project is huge but simple in order to maintain a healthy structure for a transparent and reliable Crypto Eco-system. That goes for all Cryptocurrencies, Tokens, Markets, Icos and Service providers.

As the community grew - as more and more enthusiasts joined - as more people interested in Crypto wallet ownership;  many more unreliable, inconsistent  actors came out to fraud people with cover identities and fancy but not working so-called Crypto Projects.

A strange wave of greed covered the whole eco-system. The noisy cheers of those who started to double their money in a very short period of time took more and more attention than working on and questioning the life-changing reliable Blockchain and Crypto projects. As the value of cryptocurrencies and tokens multiplied, fraud ıco and market actions multiplied. Thus the Eco-system started to face the trust and bubble issues.

The questions about the efficiency, reliability, and sustainability of the Blockchain and Cryptocurrency technology soon turned to be accusations of bubble and fraud.

Investors intend to differentiate Blockchain projects from Crypto projects. Fintech investors intend to ignore the Crypto world. Big actors repeat themselves saying they believe in Blockchain future but Crypto world might collapse.

WCCstandards.com separates itself from that arguement, however, as a determination, there can’t be efficient blockchain future without benefiting reliable crypto projects and without tokenization.

We are currently in a cycle; that many valuable blockchain and crypto projects - started up in order to bring favorable progress on the real-world problems - are facing hardest times to convince the world on their arguments.

https://wccstandards.com/home

I would rather trust an ICO who is showing their team members on videos as well as events rather than having a legal adviser listed on their ICO page. Most of the ICOs I know only upload their faces online and ends there they never show up to the public and of the things I can only think about why they are doing that is they are people with fake identity and is waiting to scam people. So if you want to build trust and reputation I would rather do events with my investor as it is the most fastest way to build trust and reputation in the market.

The legitemacy of an ICO sometimes measured by the amount of people investing in it. If you aant to know whether an ICO is a scam or not, post some thread here and people will help you find answers. They are more experienced in scam other than any other people. Just dont rush investing on it. Get some research before you do.

Kemarit, these legal experts have been slowly creeping up the space since 2016. I remember even in 2017 there were already legal firms who switched almost chiefly to crypto related cases, at least this was the case in Austria and in Switzerland, where the regulatory watchdogs like Finma had begun pursuing ICOs from firms registered there.

Look at the tendering processes recently put out by the Euro Commission... Who specifically want legal experts to help them research implications of EU law.

It is going to be big... But I agree that most of these so called crypto legal advisors will likely have only a little more knowledge than normal financial ones. Kind of like these blockchain experts who are really just marketing professionals with some familiarity with crypto.

In the last 8 months I visited a good number of ICO pitches, the projects were primarily based and established in Singapore. My first impression was that a legal adviser in a Singaporean ICO is as much important as a founder. I agree with you that it's hard to find an adviser focusing on crypto  and there's no "crypto lawyer" as such, so far. However, as long as ICO/STO market is gaining interest from crypto communities and investors, the market itself and government start to react to this interest and "create" new requirements, for example, MAS guide to digital token offerings clearly states that a legal advice needed prior to deciding on a structure of a proposed digital token and a business model.

There is no doubt the presence of a reputable lawyer in the team wouldn't give some required boost but at the same time that is not the determining factor because most of the lawyers would only be working for their billiables and the moment they can get someone to pay for their hourlies, every other thing becomes secondary. Another reason is because majority of the lawyers are loyal to their client and not the general public in addition to the fact that they can only make recommendations and even attach some level of disclaimers to it to absolve them of  any liabilities in the case of litigation.

I am a securities/crypto attorney, so I am a bit biased. However, I think the above point is correct. A knowledgeable securities attorney with experience in blockchain/crypto is certainly worth the expense. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say. At the same time, having represented some 20 ICO issuers, I can tell you that from the legal professional's perspective not all clients are always telling you the truth.

Are they partners at high profile law firms? Do they have many years of experience in securities law? These can help you determine who is reputable and who isn't. If you're investing in an ICO, you want a rock solid legal basis where your investment won't be blindsided by enforcement actions from the SEC.

However, you need to bear in mind that they're being paid considerable fees to help market an ICO. Greed is a powerful thing, and many attorneys will sell their soul if they're confident they won't personally be held liable or get disbarred for their actions. Creating a marketable team of advisors is paramount when ICOs are trying to raise money. Just keep in mind that the line between "good advisors" and "marketing strategy" can often be blurred.

Not really, I mean why do they need them in the first place? If they operate under the law legal adviser is not needed. They could be lawyers, but I haven't seen anyone really focusing on crypto as this market is still in its infancy, so I don't believed that we have enough 'crypto lawyers' today. How to check their reputations? Go around the web, look for their profiles and check the people behind if legit or not.

You won't even need a legal adviser if you have the proper permits, licenses, and authority to operate and launch your ICO right from the very beginning. A legal adviser is only their if you intend to promote your ICO launch locally in certain countries as you might not be familiar with their domestic laws and chances are you will be breaking one without their help. Now in terms of reputation I don't think that the legal department is what the investors are the ones looking for, they intend to look to people who are at the top of the operations which is more important than the legal department.

If you have time to do a deep research, try to email the company where they (claimed) work in the past. I've found several fake team profiles doing this. But it really depends on how the company responds your email. Sometimes it takes days for them to respond your email. You can also try to cross-check their reputation by doing simple search on Google, such as search their name and see whether there are media or social media profiles that mentions them. Best of luck.

Not really! The ICO laws are so ambiguous, a good legal advisor is obviously needed. But that certainly doesn't mean that the ICO will succeed. Also it doesn't provide a guarantee that the ICO owners won't scam you.

Linkedin profile is the only way to check the experience and reputation of a legal advisor or any other member of that ICO. But there's no way to validate the authenticity of the information provided in their linkedin profile.

I would suggest you to look for the company registration details instead. See if a proper office address is mentioned or not and try to validate the registration details from the company registry of the respective country.

Even though this idea is also not full proof but gives a little more sense of security. Hope this helps!

What are the core team members and advisers you're looking at when judging on ICO? Does a reputable legal adviser change an overall picture? How can you check on their reputation?