Topic: ICO Governance Foundation - page 2. (Read 1501 times)

I like your idea and this group also reviews ICO's? Before it is open to public, will you evaluate it first if it is good to invests? I have we have this kind of governing body that screened and approves ICO.

I'm not sure if you've seen this happen - I sure have - but there's a lot of "me too" and FOMO-based buying activity. People see something pumped up enough in advance of a small window sale period who jump in without a proper vet.

Of course, that's their money and their decision. But we'd like to have an easy two-page form that summarizes all of the pertinent details. That's the point of the IGF-1, which I've helped build.

Insurance won't be necessary - it's more of a ratings system when it comes to the IGF-1.

The "premium" certification, where we hold ICO proceeds and release based on benchmarks, may require something like that but I'm not directly involved in that end of the IGF.

Missed this a first read. Hmm. So basically someone wants to speak on behalf of all crypto issuers and make rules for them. Interesting indeed.

Are you going to certify ICOs that meet your base level of standards? Will you have insurance to back you up if it turns out an ICO you certified is actually bogus? Or will your certification just be a recommendation similar to the AA and AAA ratings companies like Moody's issue?

Then what is the point? Everyone already publishes white papers and people can make their own judgements.

The goal isn't to fulfill compliance requirements, it's to raise the bar and set a base level of standards. As we say in the intro, we'll establish best-practices and standards to compliment national regulatory organizations.

I'm smelling the experience from your post sir. This is the reality that thousands don't see somehow. They think ICOs are the part of blockchain ecosystem, yet they're are 100% centralized things.

This is not consistent with crypto.

This will not fulfill compliance requirements in any of the countries. Probably not even in Switzerland itself.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of scamcoins - this is (as I understand it) the basis for the Chinese regulatory action. It is my belief that the presence and prominence of an organization like this would help address a lot of the concerns.

If, for example, the community came to expect that every token sale featured an IGF-1 filing front and center, we would force everybody to disclose their allotments, team, etc. which are often pieces that can be masked/dodged all-together due to a lack of uniformity.

We're not a strict regulatory body.

What makes you guys the ones to do this? What's the greater membership structure / does leadership potentially change?

Great idea. Sorely needed. But if this is going to be a standard, we need some protection against this being run by a special interest group!

Isn't the whole point that we're de-regulated and that the free market will weed out the idiots?

ICOs are both centralized and rely on trust and therefore go against the basics of crypto by design so the only cleaning up is to discard ICOs altogether.

New project that I'd like to share with the community and get feedback on: the ICO Governance Foundation.

I've been working with a few people - Miko Matsumura from Pantera Capital, Dr. Fred Krueger of Troop, Michael Golomb, others - to spin up the IGF in an effort to clean up the ICO market. This is in response to a lot of the things that we've been observing in public ICO operations, the regulatory action around the world, and what we've heard (privately) from people inside and outside the space.

From our website, https://icogovernance.org/: "The early ICO industry is rife with hackers, scammers and opportunists. The ICO Governance Foundation (IGF) is an international organization and Swiss Foundation whose mission is to protect global ICO investors and facilitate capital formation for ICOs. To support this mission IGF provides and maintains an open source voluntary public filing and registration protocol called Form IGF-1 as well as a public registration database that performs automated collection, validation, indexing, acceptance, and forwarding of submissions. IGF works with national regulatory agencies to establish global best-practices and standards for ICOs that complement national regulatory organizations such as the SEC, ESMA, CSRC, MAS and others. IGF-1 provides transparency of the token sale custody chain and distribution of ICO proceeds. The foundation and these standard protocols are part of a Global Public Utility and industry self-regulatory function that is needed to align stakeholders and to improve the volume and flow of capital incentives for ICOs from institutional-grade investors."

Essentially three core functions:

• Whistle-blower reports, to notify the community of poorly governed ICOs
• An IGF-1 filing and registration, to create a standard set of information that each project needs to provide publicly
• Custodial agreements. To ensure that benchmarks and milestones are achieved, ICO proceeds are distributed in accordance with a set roadmap

Our whitepaper digs in deeper: https://icogovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Governance-of-Token-Sales-in-Decentralized-Capital-Markets-0.5.pdf

As we prepare to formally launch, I thought it wise to share with the community and gather feedback.

What do you think?