Topic: Impact of ICO Regulations and Investors (Read 297 times)

That's better rather than being scammed just to prevent giving their identity. This will also inform people to become wiser for their assets which is the real goal while cryptocurrency is in current trend and being adopt by new people who have/don't have background in market.

I think regulating ICO will give lot confidence in investors because every day there are many scam ICO's launching without any vision in the project. Definitely, it will help the community if they manage to regulate the ICO so that investors will be happy to invest in companies without any problem.

It is not bad at all, Think about investor protecting things like scammers can't be hold ICO in regulated county

The market will devide into two parts in any case. Governments will try to regulate the industry but each project makes the choice to do KYC and follow regulations or not. I think that community right now has more control over what is going in the industry and having a solid position will allow to protect non-KYC ICO by contributing.

However we need to understand that anonymity is not as anonymous as most think it is. Your IP+blockchain address not hard to record and then identify you.

We also need to understand that some projects need regulation to increase liquidity of their tokens because their target audience is more institutional investors rather than community. Filtering scam is another important thing of course.

Both ways of doing ICOs will stay.

Regulation by the authorities is good, as to reduce the number of bad projects, but on the other hand it is very bad since the government will know who invests in the crypto currency.

Sorry for having merited this. Now I feel stupid.

I think you are making an important point here. When discussing possible regulation of cryptos, we always have to specify which specific  aspect of cryptos we are talking about.

Regulation can mean taxation of profits made from trading, regulation of exchanges (e.g. concessions and capital requirements), ICOs (e.g. transparency requirements), AML and many more.
 
I personally believe that regulation could make sense in some areas and ICOs are one of them. As you said, they are often not more than start-ups that look for financing. A lot of them will use aggressive marketing strategies to get their hands on investors’ money. While you could argue that an individual should always be able to assess risks by doing its own research and then be accountable for it, in reality there often exist information asymmetries to the detriment of investors. This is exactly where regulation could step in.

Copy and pasted from:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/dont-worry-about-bitcoin-regulation-it-cant-be-stopped/

Reported so you will hopefully be nuked!

Regulations are very important some time badly and good. Some investor protection is a good thing, But most of the investors is not really like to work with these type of ICO

I would say it is a very good move in the current ICO environment where many ICOs with no product are popping up on a daily basis, this will help protect new comers or noobs who can't differentiate between a scam and legit ICO, personally the negative impacts are less as long as it's protecting the users at large

That's actually a subject for a long and multi-threaded discussion, since it involves a lot of scientific research and the corresponding knowledge of both Social, Legal, Economic, STEM and Cybernetic fields. I wouldn't dare to call myself a prominent expert in any of those, yet I have some brief compiled opinion to add to the descussion.

Most ICOs have almost nothing in common with cryptocurrencies, other then using a smart contract over a some relatively primitive blockchain. They are generally startups, looking for funding. Most ICOs are indeed fund raising events, using future potential returns anticipation, expectation or promise as a mean to get such funds now. This kind of activity (get money today for some promises in the future), among in general honest crowd, also always attracts scammers, fraudsters and other indecent people, since their can and used to use plausible deceits to get some easy money. And the hotter the market is the easier it is to defraud a client. Toprevent such harmful activities, it has to be either self-regulated by the market participants, or self-regulated with the market environment (protocols), or regulated with some professional authorities.

It is absolutely obvious, that centralized regulations are outdated in many aspects and can not support the potential growth, we can see many examples, where they fail and perform worse, than would perform a simply scripted bot, which just executes the same rules, as such organization. Yet, there is also many ways to implement many procedures on a protocol level or as a part of self-regulation system, but it is quite hard (most likely impossible) to build a system preventing all fraud and other potential crimes from being committed in this system, without sacrificing its flexibility and its development potential. Have a human-managed regulator is a good compromise solution at this moment of time, while automated and self-governing systems and protocols are still far from being well done or wide spread.

Now, regulations give ICOs and crypto-currencies validity and recognition on a legal level. It looks as a necessary glue between the existing system and the newborn industry. I would agree, that most crypto-currencies can easily exist without any legal recognition, yet it is also true, that it will diminish their social impact and potential. If they won't be able to use most mass channels, they won't become a standard. Niche - maybe, still with tons of troubles and a permanent risk of legal actions their against users.

I don't agred with you that regulations are good for cryptocurrency ICO and obviously, crypto are not meant for any kind of regulation -call it good or bad regulations, the bottom line is that bitcoin and altcoins regulations will affect Cryptocurrency usage  because this is a peer to peer decentralized  blockchain that does not require regulations by any persons or group of persons.

Now these are some examples on attempts by governments to regulate Cryptocurrency.
In December 2013, the Chinese government banned financial institutions from using bitcoin, causing a downturn in the cryptocurrency's value that would set a precedent for its worth over the coming years. Less than a year later, in April 2014, several Chinese bitcoin exchanges had their bank accounts closed. That spurred concern that government oversight limiting access to fiat currency (traditional, 'real world' currency) could be lead a wave of future regulations to curtail bitcoin's growth. Yet loopholes in the crackdown meant many exchanges stayed in business, and bitcoin’s price rose some 25 percent in the 10 days that followed.
Again ,
the U.S. has made localized attempts to regulate specific aspects of bitcoin. New York State requires a "BitLicense" for bitcoin related businesses, with specific rules for employee vetting and identification. Just last month, the IRS won a landmark ruling to gain access to information about 14,000 historic Coinbase accounts, in an attempt to gather back taxes from owners.
While some of those instances are more concerning than others, none of it has stopped bitcoin’s growth. That reveals the flaws of any future attempts to crack down on bitcoin’s use.

Now a day most of the countries going be regulate the cryptocurrency ICO. I think regulation is good thing several ways and some bads.
Regulation can protect all the investors from the scam people because of anyone can make ICO. A bad thing is also some anonymous investors don't really like to invest regulated ICO.