I really don't understand why people think crowd-sourcing is where the "innovation" is. People have been crowd-sourcing and offering shares in potential profit for hundreds of centuries. To put it in perspective, the British Conquest of India was partly "crowd-sourced" in the sense that East India Company had a number of private investors. You could say wars were also crowd-sourced in the sense that bonds issued to fund these wars in the 17th century were bought by private investors. None of this is what's "innovative"
The primary innovation in the ecosystem was what Satoshi offered when he made a system that allowed all of us to remove the barriers set by conventional banking and fiat system . A lot of these "investments" are being made because you have an anonymous system of value transfer that happens digitally. Granted a lot of the new coins (especially IOTA ) are solving drastically new problems, what am trying to talk of is the pointless hype around them.
The primary innovation in the ecosystem was what Satoshi offered when he made a system that allowed all of us to remove the barriers set by conventional banking and fiat system . A lot of these "investments" are being made because you have an anonymous system of value transfer that happens digitally. Granted a lot of the new coins (especially IOTA ) are solving drastically new problems, what am trying to talk of is the pointless hype around them.
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.
