How to combat the surge in scam ICOs - page 2.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VTS on September 05, 2017, 04:54:31 AM

1. Democratically voting members into the committee ( min 20 people to avoid corruption)

Democratic voting by who? Farmed accounts, shitposters and spammers? Roll Eyes

Quote from: VTS on September 05, 2017, 04:54:31 AM

2. Make a fee for it and pay committee members and infrastructure

This would not be worth the effort/reward.

Quote from: VTS on September 05, 2017, 04:54:31 AM

3. Needs much more thinking to find a proper working solution. But I believe its doable!

Everyone says something like that, similarly for the trust system. Come up with a fully detailed solution that works both in theory and practice, and then we can talk about whether it's doable or not.

VTS

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Licensing & Monetizing Digital Content!

Quote from: Lauda on September 05, 2017, 04:13:41 AM

Quote from: VTS on September 05, 2017, 03:45:32 AM

Maybe a community driven audit service?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135456.40

That will not work: 1) Hard to choose said members. 2) Said members would have to *waste their free time* to essentially be doing someone elses homework. 3) Prone to abuse and corruption. As we've seen with other members in the past, they're willing to sell themselves out for a penny (e.g. Quickseller bogus escrow).

Quote from: VTS on September 05, 2017, 03:45:32 AM

Some ANN fee

Should be mandatory IMO.

No answer, as expected.

1. Democratically voting members into the committee ( min 20 people to avoid corruption)
2. Make a fee for it and pay committee members and infrastructure
3. Needs much more thinking to find a proper working solution. But I believe its doable!
4. It can be never regulative more a added trust factor at the end always investor decides by himself where to invest under which circumstances...

But as said, its just a thought....

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VTS on September 05, 2017, 03:45:32 AM

Maybe a community driven audit service?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135456.40

That will not work: 1) Hard to choose said members. 2) Said members would have to *waste their free time* to essentially be doing someone elses homework. 3) Prone to abuse and corruption. As we've seen with other members in the past, they're willing to sell themselves out for a penny (e.g. Quickseller bogus escrow).

Quote from: VTS on September 05, 2017, 03:45:32 AM

Some ANN fee

Should be mandatory IMO.

No answer, as expected.

VTS

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Licensing & Monetizing Digital Content!

Maybe a community driven audit service?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135456.40

+

Some ANN fee

rcoins0720

full member

Activity: 253

Merit: 100

with that can we report and paste the links of those face ICO bounties here in order for them to shut down I've been scam several times in joining bounties

Scam Exposey

member

Activity: 135

Merit: 10

Quote from: cryptodevil on August 29, 2017, 04:37:03 AM

Quote from: erikalui on August 29, 2017, 03:49:13 AM

And what if the project who invests 1 BTC ends up scamming users as they are now considered verified and trusted ICOs?

No, I already said that the payment of bitcoin to post an ICO thread WOULD NOT equate to it being considered trusted, it would simply be a means by which we can throttle the flow of new ICOs being launched through bitcointalk, thus reducing the numbers to a more manageable rate for investigating and evaluating.

The bitcoin collected doesn't even have to be paid to those who expose scams, we just need a process implemented which would serve to reduce the number of threads being posted.

It would be absolutely critical for there NOT to be a 'verified' or 'approved' label for ICOs, as that would be a legal minefield and likely open to abuse.

I think nobody can set some rules like that unless theymos would like to do so but if you really want it to implement here well it can be another source of corruption here and paying a 1btc payment can make those scam Ico's legit and instead they will get few bucms here they can actually gey millions since they can abuse that 1 btc posting pay rules.

Remember scammers can invest for there schemes and I think paying for allowing a thread is useless.

We can't stop scamming and the main thing to battle that is to gave awareness and not by putting some rules that can be abuse by the both parties.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: erikalui on August 29, 2017, 03:49:13 AM

And what if the project who invests 1 BTC ends up scamming users as they are now considered verified and trusted ICOs?

No, I already said that the payment of bitcoin to post an ICO thread WOULD NOT equate to it being considered trusted, it would simply be a means by which we can throttle the flow of new ICOs being launched through bitcointalk, thus reducing the numbers to a more manageable rate for investigating and evaluating.

The bitcoin collected doesn't even have to be paid to those who expose scams, we just need a process implemented which would serve to reduce the number of threads being posted.

It would be absolutely critical for there NOT to be a 'verified' or 'approved' label for ICOs, as that would be a legal minefield and likely open to abuse.

erikalui

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1094

And what if the project who invests 1 BTC ends up scamming users as they are now considered verified and trusted ICOs? Most of the ICOs these days are cheating with respect to the team members, having fake linkedn profiles and those who have a strong team too end up not paying their investors and participants. There are some forums that require verification of users before they start selling their services/products. That would be much more beneficial but again comes the question, who will verify them? We need some reputed members who can take up this task to stop these scams.

Venidici

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

I'm not really sure if paying 1BTC will solve the problem.
Because: Pay 1 BTC (earn 'trust') --to gain--> 100+BTC --> abandon everything with 99+BTC profit (== reeeally good ROI x'D)

To protect newbies against potential scam ICO, I think there should be a standardized checklist.
The more an ICO fulfill the checklists/expectations (like post verified linkedIn founder pictures, proper whitepaper, opensource wallets, etc) .. the higher their score.
If they can't do that, automatically treat all low-score ICOs, rushed ICOs, as 'potential scam'.

Aventhe

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 134

Quote from: ABCbits on August 26, 2017, 09:59:06 AM

Huge warning with red and bold text is better idea than ask 1BTC for every ICO thread since scammer could earn more than 1BTC in scam ICO. Ban all ICO thread might works just like when altcoin giveaway is banned from this forum.

The only problem with this is that not everyone goes through each of the pages for an ANN or bounty thread. Some may only go through the first and last. The only way the full impact of the huge red letters could be conveyed is if it had been written on every page of their thread.

Another problem is that it still doesn't combat the mass amount of scam ICOs as they are still allowed to post their thread. Then cryptodevil would still have to investigate all possible scams that are being posted. As stated by cryptodevil, the whole point is not to eliminate it (although would be nice), but to reduce down the number of scammers. That will allow more time to be spent on the harder criminals who have a bigger budget to spend on their scam idea.

audaciousbeing

hero member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 569

Quote from: ABCbits on August 26, 2017, 09:59:06 AM

Huge warning with red and bold text is better idea than ask 1BTC for every ICO thread since scammer could earn more than 1BTC in scam ICO. Ban all ICO thread might works just like when altcoin giveaway is banned from this forum.

This is equally my concern because we have seen several amount of dollars dedicated to such and even hire campaign participants to even be paid more than the average payment by others. Yes it will reduce the amount of people involved in ICOs as it will discourage people who dont have the capital wherewithal to make things happen but at the same time give room for big scammers. Another way to look into it as my suggestions is that if possible before an ICO open, a period of 2 weeks should be allowed for anyone to vet the activities even before launching.

Aventhe

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 134

Quote from: cryptodevil on August 28, 2017, 08:18:00 AM

Quote from: Aventhe on August 28, 2017, 07:26:33 AM

Look at LustICO for example, they have already raised more than 1 BTC and have also been labelled as scammers. Even if they had paid a fee, they would still have surely gone a head with their operation.

The idea would be that 95% of the ICO scams currently being started would be blocked as many of them are literally thrown together for a couple of hundred bucks of expenses at most and wouldn't have the means to raise several thousand to pay a posting fee for an announcement thread. Stopping the plethora of cheap-ass scammers would at least lessen the number to a more manageable degree and allow time to investigate the more devious and determined fraudulent ICOs.

It isn't to say that anybody who paid the fee would be considered legit, no, it is simply to throttle the flood of ICO threads sufficiently that we can at least have a fighting chance of exposing the criminals and the con-artists.

Now that you put it that way- true, it would greatly help the reduction of cheap ICO scams. Still, maybe not 95%, but it would certainly help clear out more time to focus on harder, more dedicated scammers. In terms of value and funds saved through this introduction, I can see the 95 come to play.

Also, if an ICO is clear scam and they have run off with a large sum of money, how often is legal action taken? As the scammer/ scammers may be overseas and that can complicate the problem even more.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: minthit on August 28, 2017, 08:28:02 AM

I am new to cryptocurrency. I'm curious that if bitcointalk charge 1BTC for posting an ICO, does it mean that bitcointalk regulates the crypto world?

No, it would be about Bitcointalk regulating the abuse of this forum by scammers, that's all.

minthit

member

Activity: 327

Merit: 11

I am new to cryptocurrency. I'm curious that if bitcointalk charge 1BTC for posting an ICO, does it mean that bitcointalk regulates the crypto world?

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: Aventhe on August 28, 2017, 07:26:33 AM

Look at LustICO for example, they have already raised more than 1 BTC and have also been labelled as scammers. Even if they had paid a fee, they would still have surely gone a head with their operation.

The idea would be that 95% of the ICO scams currently being started would be blocked as many of them are literally thrown together for a couple of hundred bucks of expenses at most and wouldn't have the means to raise several thousand to pay a posting fee for an announcement thread. Stopping the plethora of cheap-ass scammers would at least lessen the number to a more manageable degree and allow time to investigate the more devious and determined fraudulent ICOs.

It isn't to say that anybody who paid the fee would be considered legit, no, it is simply to throttle the flood of ICO threads sufficiently that we can at least have a fighting chance of exposing the criminals and the con-artists.

Aventhe

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 134

Quote from: Hackabu on August 28, 2017, 06:15:48 AM

While being new to this community: agreed. The amount of scammy or just super unprofessional ICO's is astounding.

The idea of charging 1 BTC per ICO thread is interesting, but has some flaws too: first of all, how to administer it? Either, there would have to be manual approval (which might take a long time, if a lot of requests come in), or a complete payment gateway would have to be set up (which I find hard to believe, considering the simplicity of the forum software).
Then there is the question of how would the newly-financed task force operate? Would it be pre-approval, or removal of scammy ICO's after the post has been made? And who would be the judge on borderline cases?

But in general, yes, I believe the current Altcoin forum is almost anarchy, and something should be done to rein in the scammers and spammers. I like the idea of fixing some rules on terminology and minimum standards. I also have another idea: how about banning completely new acounts (such as my own, actually Wink

) from posting in that subforum? So that, for example, only accounts with 100 activity or more post there?
This might root out some of the throwaway spam accounts that are created purely for spamming up one ICO and dissapear afterwards.

I too would have to agree with this. There are a massive amount of scam ICOs today, (while being new to the community, I have read through most of cryptodevil's recent threads and I have to say it is very interesting).

However, a problem I can see with this is that if people are setting up a scam ICO, they are most likely going to devote to it as it is certainly a lot of work to make it seem legitimate. Therefore, I am sure that they are willing to pay even a 1 BTC fee with hopes to raise more.

Look at LustICO for example, they have already raised more than 1 BTC and have also been labelled as scammers. Even if they had paid a fee, they would still have surely gone a head with their operation. In the end, I think it is a great idea, but I do can't really see the 95% reduction being a reality, however I may be wrong.

Hackabu

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 0

While being new to this community: agreed. The amount of scammy or just super unprofessional ICO's is astounding.

The idea of charging 1 BTC per ICO thread is interesting, but has some flaws too: first of all, how to administer it? Either, there would have to be manual approval (which might take a long time, if a lot of requests come in), or a complete payment gateway would have to be set up (which I find hard to believe, considering the simplicity of the forum software).
Then there is the question of how would the newly-financed task force operate? Would it be pre-approval, or removal of scammy ICO's after the post has been made? And who would be the judge on borderline cases?

But in general, yes, I believe the current Altcoin forum is almost anarchy, and something should be done to rein in the scammers and spammers. I like the idea of fixing some rules on terminology and minimum standards. I also have another idea: how about banning completely new acounts (such as my own, actually Wink

) from posting in that subforum? So that, for example, only accounts with 100 activity or more post there?
This might root out some of the throwaway spam accounts that are created purely for spamming up one ICO and dissapear afterwards.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: reginalkri on August 28, 2017, 01:16:04 AM

It's like being annoyed that you see beggars begging for money when you go outside? What can the begger do? Completely give up and rot in a corner?

False equivalence. Beggars are not pretending to be innovative entrepreneurs seeking millions of dollars in investment funding.

Quote from: reginalkri on August 28, 2017, 01:16:04 AM

Edit: Did you just change your avatar OP? I could of sworn that it was a gif of a guy right before I click reply.

No, my avatar has remained the same for a number of years and, btw, it's "could have", not "could of".

reginalkri

sr. member

Activity: 285

Merit: 250

I don't think there's much one can do. It is what it is.

I was watching a Crypto conference and they said that something like 200 ICOs are launched every month. Or some insane number. And that right there it the problem, people trying to make money by attaching a coin to any little idea, and that leads to campaigns.

It is what it is, people are desperate, and so there's not much one can do.

It's like being annoyed that you see beggars begging for money when you go outside? What can the begger do? Completely give up and rot in a corner?

Edit: Did you just change your avatar OP? I could of sworn that it was a gif of a guy right before I click reply.

ChromaticStar

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 100

It's like it was a few years ago with all the shitcoins that were created. Most of them were clones and just died. Some of them are still around and can be traded on Nova, Yobit and stuff. Unless the ICO is something truly innovative or is finding a new way to tap a successful existing market, just stay away.

Topic: How to combat the surge in scam ICOs - page 2. (Read 2296 times)