Topic: How would you view an ICO project if it was launched by an accredited lawyer? - page 2. (Read 1166 times)
May 13, 2020, 05:59:17 AM
It wouldn't make any difference to me. I think the current investors are mainly concerned if there will be enough liquidity for quite a while after the token sale. Liquidity always comes first.
May 13, 2020, 05:39:27 AM
It meant jack shit. Yeah, I said it! The difference between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer is none. At best, regular ICO just pay some clown with a title 'accredited lawyer' to fool people. Now, if that person was an influent person, someone everyone respect and is well known among crypto. That would be hugely different.
May 13, 2020, 01:25:52 AM
I don't overthink about that because the era of the old ICO project is over, and I think it will replace with the new trend. Even if that project launched by an accredited lawyer, it doesn't mean he can easily to gain popularity on the internet because he needs to compete with the other project. Maybe he is famous in real life, but he cannot expect to get the same thing when he goes online because he will meet many people who already famous on the internet, but they don't recognize in real life.
May 13, 2020, 01:11:49 AM
First, proof of authenticity.
We need that. There had been a bad event before where students used the profile of their professors to create the team of an ICO.
Forgot its name. But it got viral here.
Next, legitimacy. How can we be sure? Where should we check it? What if there is privacy control in their country?
He could show papers but I could also make one to be a fake lawyer.
If he passed that all, the project.
Even if you are the most tweeted guy in Twitter, the project could still fail.
It is not just about the name or position. Investors are getting careful now.
We need that. There had been a bad event before where students used the profile of their professors to create the team of an ICO.
Forgot its name. But it got viral here.
Next, legitimacy. How can we be sure? Where should we check it? What if there is privacy control in their country?
He could show papers but I could also make one to be a fake lawyer.
If he passed that all, the project.
Even if you are the most tweeted guy in Twitter, the project could still fail.
It is not just about the name or position. Investors are getting careful now.
May 13, 2020, 12:25:56 AM
I think there is no change even its handled by a lawyer. Crypto project boss usually are composed of different sector some are businessman, artist, developers, as long as the project showcase a relative good concept, unique and have a good set of team to work on it then its okay. The bearing that it was handled by a lawyer could be good since he know that if he commited a crime or fraud he will be jail so launching a legit one will be much safer.
May 12, 2020, 11:51:21 PM
let's say that an ico conducted by an accredited person, a lawyer has more confidence from investors and perhaps is less at risk of scam but this does not mean that it will be successful and will meke earn the investors this nobody can know it until the end of the ico
Lawyer is surely gonna be confident but the investors I don't think so.Having someone popular or somehow reputated to get into crypto is like the same way as the launching of Libra Coin of Facebook by Zuckerberg.
It kinda reduces the risk of the scam because it is surely a popular platform, but earning from it? I don't know.
May 12, 2020, 11:44:46 PM
you mean you have invested on a project that is launched by an acredited lawyer before but still fail to achieve success . that is still possible because having a lawyer does not dictate the sucess of a project but there are also regular or normal projects without a lawyer but still became succesful at the end . its unpredictable mate . scammers can also claim that thier project is compose of professional people with lawyers but they are all fake and people will just believe on it if ever they wont conduct a brief research
May 12, 2020, 11:35:22 PM
Hey there everyone,
Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!
P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.
Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!
P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.
There's no difference at all, there are a lot of crowdfunding with reputable name and organization behind the project, but failed miserably in the market and in their ICO, the project could be legit but it's not gaining support because the platform is not attractive or there is no usage for the coin, investors are wiser now, they want longevity of the project and what it can contribute to the community.
May 12, 2020, 06:01:09 PM
Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
I would trust if a proved developer comes up with a project that is feasible than anyone else. I cannot imagine a lawyer with a software development background and hence there is no way to think that he could succeed in doing something than many failed. Starting a project is one thing but carrying on with the development is another, we have seen many projects that had good developers and good projects at first glance but what they do after collecting all the money is not monitored, if everything is recorded and monitored by a third party that is accredited and if they fail to fulfill what they started then they need to return the investment and if so then i will invest In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
. Yes, lawyer even accredited one can't make a successful project but definitely he can manipulate the docs. A real developer can make the project successful as he knows what to do with the project, but a lawyer, how will he do the programming and all? So I won't invest in an ICO project launched by accredited lawyer. He knows how to go around when things are not in favour on their side.
May 12, 2020, 05:42:09 PM
Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
I would trust if a proved developer comes up with a project that is feasible than anyone else. I cannot imagine a lawyer with a software development background and hence there is no way to think that he could succeed in doing something than many failed. Starting a project is one thing but carrying on with the development is another, we have seen many projects that had good developers and good projects at first glance but what they do after collecting all the money is not monitored, if everything is recorded and monitored by a third party that is accredited and if they fail to fulfill what they started then they need to return the investment and if so then i will invest In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
. 
May 12, 2020, 05:18:24 PM
No one wants to invest in the ICO project, many famous people tried already and they failed! This year David Chaum's XX coin had an ICO and the result wasn't the same as expectation. Last year EZ365 CEO did IEO/ICO but that was failed too. So, people do not care who is launching the ICO project, because ICO means a waste of money, where IEO investors getting good ROI continuously! So, for your question, my answer is, I have the same decision for a shit ICO and a great ICO because I just don't care ICO anymore!
May 12, 2020, 01:39:01 PM
As it stands, even if an accredited lawyer launches an ICO, I can't risk my funds in it. Why not go through a reputable exchange to launch the project. The main reason why I won't invest is the fact that I can't be so sure if truly its from an accredited lawyer, also I'm not sure of listing in a good exchange after the ICO. And if the token sale doesn't go well since people don't fancy ICO anymore, it becomes an issue.
May 12, 2020, 12:31:05 PM
Hey there everyone,
Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!
P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.
Not much will change at least on my case, after all my first question will be why a lawyer is releasing an ico? My reaction could be different if the one releasing the coin was a known developer that was known as capable and responsible and that has led several projects to success in the past, that will attract my attention, but when it comes to anyone else and that includes famous people, famous investors or anyone with a profession other than a blockchain developer my opinion of the project will not change at all. Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!
P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.
May 12, 2020, 11:41:50 AM
Well, I believe there has to be someone we all know, and there are not that many accredited lawyer that I know. The reason why "known famous people" starting projects or be parts of it was the fact that we heard that name before.
But even that wasn't enough, I could see the hugest Hollywood names on the "team" page but as long as I do not see them supporting it somewhere I will not really believe you, so that famous person in the crypto world or in some other world, has to share that support, and if they do I will believe and invest probably. Yet lawyer is not someone that is famous, sure there are some judges and all that who are a bit famous but even they are not too much famous, hence I think it is not the same thing to compare them to the famous people.
But even that wasn't enough, I could see the hugest Hollywood names on the "team" page but as long as I do not see them supporting it somewhere I will not really believe you, so that famous person in the crypto world or in some other world, has to share that support, and if they do I will believe and invest probably. Yet lawyer is not someone that is famous, sure there are some judges and all that who are a bit famous but even they are not too much famous, hence I think it is not the same thing to compare them to the famous people.
May 12, 2020, 09:44:06 AM
Don't fall into a person who claims that he was a lawyer or high profile link unless he/they will provide their real identity and proven to be true. Because this might be a way to attract investors and think that they can be trusted. Don't forget how smart are the scammers today, they'll do everything just achieve their goal and put everything to be at risk.
Because for me now, I used to skip ICO projects for investment but rather to consider those projects that are proven already...
Because for me now, I used to skip ICO projects for investment but rather to consider those projects that are proven already...
May 12, 2020, 09:40:38 AM
let's say that an ico conducted by an accredited person, a lawyer has more confidence from investors and perhaps is less at risk of scam but this does not mean that it will be successful and will meke earn the investors this nobody can know it until the end of the ico
yeah agreed, it doesn't really matter if it is an ico or not actually. its just users and investors are convinced that icos are cursed or rarely successful at allbut accredited person in charge is a good sign for investors for sure
don't think that regular user actually check who runs the campaign at all
May 12, 2020, 09:16:35 AM
How is this going to make any difference? If the project is not good, it is going to fail at the market. Anyone who invested in it will lose their money. Whether the promoter is an advocate or not is not going to make any impact on the future of the ICO. On the other hand, there are some additional risk factors. He may use legal loopholes, to escape from owning up the responsibilities.
May 12, 2020, 09:01:03 AM
Projects from celebs or well known people are the most dangerous projects to invest on because they will easily build hype that's based on the popularity teams or CEO or advisors and after some while price will surely dump, I'm just talking from experience, we know what happened to Moozicore that McAfee promoted
May 12, 2020, 08:57:42 AM
Do not care what others say and comment. Consider the project based on your experience. In the past, I used to invest in Fomo projects from celebrities, but eventually they became scams and disappeared from this market.
May 12, 2020, 07:32:33 AM
Hey there everyone,
Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!
P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.
Just a curious question on the perception differences between a regular ICO and one that was run by an accredited lawyer - would that make a difference to you as in investor?
In the past, at the height of the ICO investment craze, I know that name dropping companies and "respected" individuals as advisors would almost be enough to convince investors who didn't know better.
Moreover, now there's a greater shift towards IEOs for scam prevention purposes with counter-party checks.
Just a curious question! Share your thoughts!
P.S. Yeah, I was one of those who invested in an ICO project called JET8 that currently has an ROI of -99.8% haha shoutout to anyone who flushed their money down this way.
There are more credible than accredited lawyers, there are businessman, bankers developers but their reputation is not enough to carry the weight of making a project great, it losses support overtime because it's not something that can sustain for a long time in terms of profit and usage of the platform.
Jump to: