Topic: ICO vs crowdfunding (Read 2546 times)

Excerpt from: https://coins.newbium.com/post/3206-crowdfunding-vs-ico-confront-the-expert-legitimacy

One major difference between traditional methods of crowdfunding and ICO, is the market value. When a product is introduced on crowdfunding platforms like Indiegogo, investors and buyers aware of exactly what to expect when the product was complete.


            For example, when the smart Pebble start their crowdfunding campaign, the investor can immediately find out whether the product is worth the amount of money by comparing other people's products on the market.


            In contrast, almost impossible to predict the outcome of the ICO, especially if users are not fully aware of what they can expect. ICO itself is not based on market value in the real world, thus making it vulnerable to substantial under or overvaluation of assets.

The term of ICO was just catchy as it resembles to IPO but it has almost nothing in common, mainly in the legal aspect.

ICOs means crowdfunding or better say,  it is one way of crowdfunding.
The most important thing ICO and crowdfunding have in common, is he fact that the tokens (or the project) may NOT exists at the end of the sale.

In an IPO there is a bid for shares of an already existing company or business how you want to name it.
In an ICO the bid if for tokens of arbitrary value which might not even be issued and certainly don't go through the SEC approval process.


Yeah, people investing in tokens do that out of goodwill.
And you're mistaken about the second part.
Also add one thing. In most crowdfunding if the value is not reached the money are sent back , in ICO.....can I laugh?

Why Crowdfunding does not offer the teaching benefits? There are a variety of projects. But all of these projects have clear project documentation. There is a certain amount needed to run this project and there are specific percentages that will be distributed among the depositors. ICO is a similar project but totally outside the control of investors.

There are two major differences which clearly differenciate crowdfunding from ICOs .  In ICOs , there is a generation and issuance of their own tokens and the developers take the help of other wallets such as ECR-20 wallets and waves wallets etc to access and trade their tokens . They basically have to promote their coins and also tend to take some donations in the name of pre-ICO . The value of the coin is not known to anyone before the ICO . It all depends up on the success of the ICO . Whereas , crowdfunding such as Indiegogo is a crowd of people raising funds collectively to get some mutual profit from a product. The value of the crowdfunding is known before hand and the investors have a pretty good idea of the outcomes.

ICOs are for the cryptomarket mostly and have no restrictions. Anyone can invest however much they want, from any location on the planet. Crowdfunding is however regulated and there are people who cannot invest however much they believe in the project.

Crowdfunding projects are usually projects where you do not expect a return of your investment as these are solely used to raise money to either release a new product.

ICOs however are treated as investment, as these usually will give out tokens or coins as a form of currency or a share. This is also the reason why it is heavily regulated in some areas.

The main difference between ICOs and crowdfunding is regulations. ICO is unregulated way to raise funds whereas crowdfunding is regulated. This keeps ICO off from hassle and also leads to lots of scam. Most investors here in cryptocurrency sphere want ICO to be regulated as well. I feel ICOs will get regulated soon because of increase in number of scam attempts. Countries would either be banning ICOs or be regulating it in near future.

Of course it's the same thing. With the exception of those projects which receive grant funding through crowdfunding. When investing in ICO each user has a hope that he will profit from the project. Other differences between ICO and crowdfunding I don't see.

Crowdfunding is the process of funding a project or idea by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people usually by internet.

ICO is an unregulated way by which funds are raised for a new crypto currency venture. An Initial Coin Offering is used by developers to bypass the rigorous and regulated capital-raising for their desired project usually it is made by selling their token or coin's idea to the customer for a certain amount.

So itis safe to say that ICO is a type of crowdfunding.

The first Icos have done very well, no longer like the old icos,many of them just come out as frauds and then disappear now.

ICO is different from crowdfunding or IPO.

Crowdfunding or IPOs are regulated by most countries which impose restrictions on who is allowed to fund or how much they are allowed to contribute.
ICO is unregulated. It was born to bypass the regulations. People can invest as much as they want. Everyone can raise money by issuing cryptocurrency. There is no need to have developed products. The only you need is ideas. And you can raise more money than Crowdfunding. Investors  often don’t have any right to the company. So there is no protection. It is often considered as a crowdsales (their products are coins. So for tax purpose, they will be taxed, proceeds from IPO are not taxed).

ICO's crowdfund to exchange. You buy tokens from ICO's to be used and exchanged at a later date.

ICO's are great, but the problem I see int he future is that there will be so many. Decentralized currency is great, but there has to be a few ICO's that become the standard.

ICO's are great, but the government will always want a piece of the pie. Except this pie has a barrier of entry. I'm interested to see how the next few years will look like with crypto, blockchain tech, and just the sheer amount of governments competing to be the first to implement.

I think it'll take a major player to come in and set the trend. Right now it seems as if a good amount of countries are too unfamiliar, so they default to just not allowing it. But then you have places like Switzerland who have issued blockchain passports. Maybe if the US or China chooses to somehow implement and regulate, ICO's will be allowed again. With cryptocurrencies, it can be hard to regulate if people don't cash out. Great insight on this thread.

So it seems that ICO's are controversial and will inevitably be scrutinized by governments and the media. Does anyone have thoughts on how this will impact crypocurrency in general? It seems to me that the ultimate goal for cyrpocurrency is to get more mainstream, and more accessible- which was happening until the news out of China. If the international conversation turns to ICOs and regulations, do you think this will stall progress overall?

I Authenticate
It is not horrid, it is how the law functions.
You have two choices here: either comply or circumvent.

ICOs can not be decentralized and are actually rings of centralization
upon each other. Depending on your parent system, all ICO dependents
could be voided or outright destroyed.

Casinos are majority of the time regulated and when you deposit or
withdraw, you are forced to comply with their KYC/AML. So, ICOs are
not like Casinos in anyway, unless you are taking about unregulated
or illegal casinos.

Your personal beliefs on how "securities" function and the barriers
to entry are irrelevant. Security devices were created to be regulated
for human protection from human exploitation. Whether the current
system is an efficient one, is irrelevant. The original purpose was
protection from those who are destructive to the larger system.
ICOs, as they currently exist, are destructive to different systems
and do not provide any benefit to the world, accept maybe as to
revealing new loopholes that governments will eventually patch,
since it is possible to patch and enforce against such a weak device.
In most ways, ICOs are worse than Shitcoins.




This is irrelevant since ownership does not exist in ICOs, nor in
properly functioning blockchain systems. If you claim you have
ownership, it is only because your human government has
granted you those rights, like with legitimate securities. ICOs are
illegal and unregistered financial devices, designed to exploit the
system so that human exploitation could be performed with very
high gains.

When you combine "legally complying entities" WITH an "illegal
circumvention devices", and argue that it has valid aspects, to
my understanding, that is comparable to saying "murder is beneficial".
It could be argued that murder is a more efficient and natural way
for humans to acquiring assets or property, when compared to
doing such through burdensome and numerous hurdles of the
governmental regulation systems. The laws exist to prevent
actions that you are either aware of or not, and whether you will
perform or not. What is burdensome to you as a normal user,
is preventive to another who is an normal attacker. ICOs allow
normal attackers to perform exploitation upon the normal users.
Regulation of ICOs can never stop exploitation in the same manner
that regulated securities currently do, so it will be outlawed for
legal entities to use.

The reality is that ICOs will likely not survive into the future
because they circumvent while being created by legal entities that
are forced to comply. This contradiction is laughable and means
either two things: either stupidity or outright scam. These tokens
and their controllers are ripe for enforcement and their time will
come since they are all ignorant or willful. The governments
and laws profit most from human ignorance. If humans always
complied and were knowledgeable, governments would serve no
purpose. The reality is that your current programming prevents
you from taking appropriate actions and thus needs human
governance to protect you from others, and others from you.

Danger Close ICO No Play
Roger Roger

Wow. What a horrid outlook.

ICOs allow autonomy of money. They allow decentralized participation.

The average person can get in on an ICO, the same way they can go to a casino. Where as securities require archaic framework, muddled with endless corruption, short sellers, etc. You may not even be able to buy into them, depending on who you are and who they are, and it'll cost you money.

An ICO also allows funding without a change in ownership. Unlike a traditional security where public stock offerings may kill the company under new ownership, thereby screwing the small investor, an ICO doesn't relinquish control to penny pushers. Another way to see them is they allows the mission statement to continue without intervention.

IMO ICOs are amazing, many of their attributes will be found in the future of investing.

Your thinking is absolutely wrong i think.Because is ICO is very important for newbie in this forum because a newbie member is does not all about this forum.ICO is my favourite.

I don't like IC0s....its a waste of peoples time and money