I guess the forum itself could do it, since that probably would be the only way for there to exist a certification service that ICOs will actually feel like they need to go through to attract investors. Otherwise most ICOs will just ignore the certification service since it won't be worth exposing themselves to such scrutiny just to be able to bid to buy advertising.
Maybe there could be two certification products with such a service? A "basic" which would be cheaper but more quick; that would be an analysis to make sure the proposed product is viable and actually makes sense, the people behind it are legitimate and real, and the amount being raised doesn't seem excessive. Then there could be an "advanced" certification scheme which would be more rigorous and involved. Things could be set up so that only ICOs with a basic certification can post, but ICOs with advanced certification can buy advertising and take advantage of signature campaigns.
This has the added benefit that every ICO presented on the forum will at least have gone through a basic check which would push out all the obvious scams. The money earned from proceeds from basic certification can then pay for the in depth research and analysis that would be required to do any advanced certifications.
Maybe there could be two certification products with such a service? A "basic" which would be cheaper but more quick; that would be an analysis to make sure the proposed product is viable and actually makes sense, the people behind it are legitimate and real, and the amount being raised doesn't seem excessive. Then there could be an "advanced" certification scheme which would be more rigorous and involved. Things could be set up so that only ICOs with a basic certification can post, but ICOs with advanced certification can buy advertising and take advantage of signature campaigns.
This has the added benefit that every ICO presented on the forum will at least have gone through a basic check which would push out all the obvious scams. The money earned from proceeds from basic certification can then pay for the in depth research and analysis that would be required to do any advanced certifications.
I am working on this as part of my organization. Standards in certain areas are greatly needed both to screen obvious frauds as well as a demonstration to regulators that industry is engaging in self-regulation. That, to me, was a key takeaway from the recent SEC/CFTC testimony. Self-regulation, when it can be done, often can both reduce the urgency of regulators seeking to impose their rules, as well as provide them a good framework that they are often inclined to adopt (while still meeting the statutory mandate of their agencies). I am reaching out to major crypto projects/businesses/organizations to try to build support for this work.
I have experience in design of certification standards though obviously not for ICO/ITO type certifications. However, it is needed and a critical component, as I see it, of putting in place voluntary measures that could be widely adopted, even expected, for a given offering to attract serious attention. A two-tiered approach, sort of a pre-certification and then a full certification could be done as well, as you indicate would potentially be desirable for use on BCT.
In order for any certification standard to be credible, it needs to be completely open and documented in its complete assessment methodology. There are some materials that people have published about how they evaluate ICO/ITOs that provide a good starting point, but most standards I've been involved with typically are more intricate than the general outlines I've seen from others in various places. Which of course makes sense because they're just offering their personal methodologies, not a true certification standard that could be applied widely. I'm also looking at rating criteria that are used for traditional investments as some of that is clearly applicable to the crypto asset class.
A couple of other factors that should be considered in standards criteria is that the evolution of the standard should be open to all stakeholders to participate in (think an IETF type process as a goal to eventually adopt once you have enough interest), needs to be agile enough to adapt to changing needs but not so dynamic that it's changing too often to have a clear meaning, and, the people/entities that are certifying compliance with the standard should not have any actual or perceived conflict of interest with any project they are evaluating. Other standards I've been involved in revising often operate by having a peer-review component of draft assessment documents.
Finally, the standards I've worked with typically take months to years to go from start to finish in terms of a single assessment. However, in my view much of that was needless and the actual work was done pretty quickly. Obviously, with ratings of ICO/ITO you'd have to significantly shrink that timeframe to days (for a pre-assessment / basic tier) to a few weeks (for a full assessment/certification). Those standards were originally developed in a pre-Internet world, so the standards we'd build for crypto/ICO/token/crypto business (and in my view these all need to be done via some different criteria as each has some key differences but also many similarities such as security).
Best regards,
Ben
