Topic: ICO certification service needed - page 2. (Read 2348 times)

If you are providing some kind of structure to how you make your judgements with some kind of track record then you could provide that service for the forum.  That is what OP is asking for.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. IT is like companies which now offer verification, like Facebook verify store pages/businesses and twitter verifies profile... and Airbnb verifies photos... so a company should verify ICO legitimacy.

The word "scam" is very subjective, especially in the ICO/securities space.

A lot of companies end up failing for one reason or another. Also many Bitcoin-related (crypto-related) businesses are run 'honestly' for a person, and their owners eventually scam.

---

It is my personal belief that ICOs are probably not worth their hassle to allow them to advertise here. There is too much regulatory/legal risks for them to be worth what amount of advertising revenue they bring in. Even is no regulatory sanctions are levied against you, various US regulators can cause headaches.

giveen

Above, I described the types of ICO for the evaluation it was possible to give different weight to different factors and to check that either with less or more attention.
For example, in ICO there is a strong team, is it important? If so, the ICO refers to the type of services for the classic economy it is not essential (there may be a very simple smart contracts) If we are talking about the ICO for product development in the field of blockchain technology is critical.

You do not write about the types ICO. And about the ranking as I understand it. And indicate You offer the following scale:

See in my opinion a there are various types of ICO.
First category is serious , this means weather the ico is being raised for actually developing a software , a product or anything which requires development. Now another serious is when they actually get is listed on good exchanges. In terms of investors all we care is to sell it for at least double the amount we invested in ICO so the company makes sure it lists on different exchanges.
Another category would be advertisement. As theymos said he doesn't want scam ICO's to advertise which is right but if you notice without these huge signature campaigns and forum ads the company won't even be able to raised $1k, spending funds on advertisement would mean they actually want to raise funds maybe for personal use but in end whenever these companies raise in millions it's like a guarantee that our investment will double or even triple
The last category would be as you said the lazy ones, these are the people who purchase one forum ads and distributes coins as bounty which is the worth thing they can do. Giving their coins as bounty is for sure a huge dump and most likely they list it on yobit. This can be the only category we can say it will never certify for example ethbits or eth link who claims to raise millions but barely anything.



This makes sense but verifying all that can take a lot of time and it can't always be the same there will be variations.

Because until there is a sufficiently large number of judicial precedents in important jurisdictions, the large legal companies are not willing to look at ICO. So for the time being, you can check the availability of legal entities in the registers, the founders, etc.

Interesting. I'm curious about why you wouldn't do it upfront? And if not at the beginning, then when?

The scheme of influence of various factors on the rating depending on the type of project.

About the legal risk, I don't think we need to evaluate at an early stage. However, beyond the confirmation of existence of legal entities.

That is a really good chart!

From the top of my head; in financial risk,  the risk they run out of money before project can be operationalized. What does the ico intend to do with funds? Do they already have financing from elsewhere?

Also in legal risk I think if they're entering a heavily regulated industry (eg those ico's trying to set up a stock exchange trading real shares with crypto) that increases the risk exponentially

I made a chart of the estimated risks. Please add to view, give comments.
Under certification it seems to me should fall the branches the risk of crowdfunding and the status of the project.

It's not meant to be an absolute guarantee that an ICO is legit, but more just of a vetting process to minimise risk. You could have all the qualifications to look after kids and pass all the background checks, but still doesn't mean to say they still wont abuse them. This is no different. It will at least weed out a lot of lazy ICOs who can't even be bothered putting in the minimum amount of work.

You're basically trying to become the SEC by doing this its a very time consuming/sensitive plan. I just can't imagine this working out well if it's not run by a larger organization. Like Jay said - you need to get more than one forum on board to enforce this.

The certificate cannot give guarantees that the money will be returned to investors. He confirms that the ICO has been tested by this technique. If we understand that the procedure works poorly, we change it. As concerns the second question there are two answers, the reputation or publicity. In classical economics, the rating agencies work on the basis of reputation. Here are the options with the publicity.

This is a good idea but there is no exact way to determine if the ico is legit. They can pass all the copy pasting tests , all the software tests, smart contract , transperant ico but still this won't certainly be enough because investors are investing in something which is irreversible and after getting certified the owner can change his mind or not deliver what they promised in that situation there's nothing we can do. Secondly they will start adding sponsored which leads to even more bullshit and finally if the guy who verifies wants to make more money he may just ask to give more funds to certify their project. The idea is good but there is a less chance to work.

A)  There are three ways of publicity methodology

     1) methodology is public for everyone, in this case, anyone can recalculate and check the result.
     2) the methodology open for the customer in this case is the administration of the forum.
     3) Not a public methodology, in this case the certificate is accompanied by expert opinion.

     Here need to get administration opinion.

B)  1-2 days to make the methodology fail I will only describe the approaches of analysis of the possible methods and results, this information may be public in any case.

C)   At the initial moment the ICO Team are not interested in obtaining a certificate, so it can be "imposed" service. Further, in the case of a certain quality and a certain PR it can become a separate direction.
        In the case of support from the administration I am willing to actively participate (work, to set a goal, recruit a team, etc.)

D)  The price of the certificate is established in consultation with the administration.

I doubt that it is necessary to publish your methodologies, except maybe as some of your internal documents that attempt to get clients to use your services to get certified... and also maybe as a means to provide some of the information to folks that might end up working on your team - that is if you can convince half of the scammer ICOs to attempt to get certified. 

I imagine a large majority of the ICOs don't want to get certified or to pay for certification until it becomes a thing and if it seems necessary.  If they are able to raise $100s of millions in days, then why the fuck they gonna want to get certified and expose all their weaknesses, unless certification does become a thing, and in that regard, one of the most important things is that anyone planning to engage in such a certification process to be a leader, self-motivated and establishing reasonable standards, as already outlined by Theymos.. and at the same time figuring out a ways to communicate the standards without necessarily revealing some of your trade secrets...   So maybe you go out there and certify a bunch of ICOs with grades and for free or some other way to attempt to monetize.. because everyone has to get paid at some point..  - and then some of the ICOs may be able to get better grades if they cooperate with you to audit them and they check out to be A okay.. on a deeper level.. it is a good idea, but no easy task to carry out without a lot of work..

This forum needs some restrictions. It's because there are no rules that anyone can just create a crapcoin and get away with spamming the forum with hundreds of accounts and with absolutely no consequences to them all whilst they take in millions in the process. All this is going to do is make sure the very few people who actually bid on ad slots wont bother now especially when they can just get unlimited advertising for free via a signature campaign.

It is very good idea @theymos. I think there should be implementation of software for uploading of docs and real proofs. Could you please give the idea whether there is need of such things? Like solid proofs of ICO founder or entity. Where we can find more idea about this or rules for instance. This will expand our imagination limit and we can try to implement more new ideas.

Colleagues it would be a interesting project for me!

I have some experience in a related field. I worked as credit analyst and risk manager in banks, and also engaged in the organization of financing (CLN,Eurobonds, Syndicate loan).
If theymos will give me 1-2 days, I will prepare a draft methodology for certification of ICO and will post it here for discussion.