Topic: F*** ICO's. (Read 4111 times)

Wow this is so true, in the beginning the banks laugh at us, they ridiculed us, and they accepted us and some even succumbed to us. But wait, I think they'll be laughing again

The Libertarian dream has evolved into a Capitalist nightmare. The banks used to fear cryptocurrencies. Not any more. They just need to get some popcorn and watch us destroy ourselves chasing their fiat cash.

The bankers must be laughing themselves to sleep every night.

Don't get me wrong but it's the truth, if you have a money maker idea and you go open source then everyone start to clone your idea, so in order to be able to make money you need to be closed source and I think all the companies have their own secrets why is that? because it's a money maker idea.
If a developer team comes out and says otherwise then you should check their money making idea to see if it is possible and if you can't have access to it then it's not open source and being decentralized means nothing.

Also bitcoin didn't offer any tokens to crowd sale.

Wrong.
Bitcoin went from a token worth nothing to 1350 working in that very environment.
Albeit, not a company in the conventional sense.

I don't think anyone cares if funds raised in a crowd sale or in an ICO are really from the crowd?
We can't have a currency and offer it to people before printing them(mining).

If a company is going to pay dividends to investors then it has nothing to do with crypto and being decentralized.
And if they tell you otherwise then better to stay away from them because no company would open source and operate in a decentralized environment could actually earn money.

Have you lost a lot in these ICO's,finding profitable investment it's like looking a needle in a haystack,you have to exercise due diligence,so many ICO you are lost in a sea of ico.

I would respectfully disagree with you here in this example. The dutch east india traing company was a MASSIVE innovation, at the time, as it was the first example of capital formation. It was, at the time, and is to this day, one of the single most innovative legal structures, aside from the "trust" in legal history. Moreover, it was not "crowdsourced" in the sense that we know it, as it was only made avaliable to the aristocracy in part as a revolt to the monarch who was not always able or did not allow for the funding of expeditions. It was more akin to a "private Placement" the innovation of crowdfunding, as we know it today; is not the idea, but the methods in which it is done, the technology we have as the enabler. Which is where I agree with you. The difference from today, is anyone who has an interest no matter if you're rich, poor, smart or stupid, can participate.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to want to link the prevailing and good things from our investment regulatory system and apply them to ICOs but in the spirit of decentralization and crypto? I agree with you if thats the case, the question is what should we as a collective hold, and what should we shed to provide a working framework for issuers, and for investors so that our community can thrive?

I think a productive way to look at this might be to come up with a "Manifesto" for appcoins, ICOs etc, a loose, guiding framework that people can reference and be held accountable to so that a culture can be defined and governd around what we collective believe are the proper ways to issue and invest in ICOs. lets not overlook that on the other side as an issuer, there are nefarious things that investors do to screw with valuations and the success of platforms. I would sumbit that the DAO profiteer probably had it in for the whole Ethereum ecosystem, but thats a topic for another discussion.

I would say that respect to you for raising all this as a topic as it is necessary part of the eveolution of the community. I just hope we can sort it out before some bureacrat does and then it sucks for everyone.