Topic: Is ICO regulation good or bad? - page 11. (Read 31501 times)
I am against a similar venture since the market was initially positioned as decentralized, therefore it would be wrong to regulate it
More and more countries are planning to regulate ICOs. China, Canada, Russia,... I think this in an development nobody can stop. Do you think it is good or bad that ICOs will be more regulated in the near future? What positive and negative influences will it probably have?
I think there will be more investors like professional managed funds or even retirement funds which will invest into ICOs. The prices for ICOs will then become even more expensive and make it more difficult to make profits for small investors.
Regulations for ICOs is a very perfect thing. I would have love a situation whereby priority is given to this in this year 2019 so that there will be a standard for token sales. I think there will be more investors like professional managed funds or even retirement funds which will invest into ICOs. The prices for ICOs will then become even more expensive and make it more difficult to make profits for small investors.
I don't think that's good. It seems to me that the cryptocurrency should develop completely freely. The government will limit cryptocurrency in some aspects.
I would never have thought that I would say this, but now the cryptocurrency market requires regulation and especially regulation requires startups
There are both sides of a medal here: from one side we have anonymous investments, but scammers do not sleep as well. From other side regulation will help to fix scam problems, but it will trigger kyc process.
I do not want to think that the cryptocurrency can be concentrated in the hands of government bodies. It seems to me that this will kill the cryptocurrency.
ICO regulations would be a great one. A lot of scam and unrealistic projects wouldn't exist, therefore rate of people being scammed would reduce. It will be very much welcome.
If this regulation exists, of course, the ICO will be more developed. Today many people do not have security guarantees for investments made by many people. And if these regulations exist and the government continues to monitor crypto, I believe that market prices will also continue to be high because of the trust of many investors.
If ICOS campaigns were managed. I think there are two aspects that exist. ICOS campaigns will develop safely and healthily to avoid population fraud in a family and disrupting country and rights The benefits of investors are protected. But managing ICOS campaigns will make it non-diversified. Besides, the regulations can make the campaign difficult to call for investment.
As for me regulation is good. There is a lot of scam projects. And regulation should reduce them.
Regulation of ICO will probably be able to give what the crypto market lacks so much, stability and security. Perhaps some guarantee that your investment will bring profit can bring new blood to the market.
Regulation has both advantages and disadvantages.
Plus - a decrease in the number of scammers and the protection of investors' money
The minus is the dependence on the regulatory authority, which will set the rules of the game convenient for it.
Plus - a decrease in the number of scammers and the protection of investors' money
The minus is the dependence on the regulatory authority, which will set the rules of the game convenient for it.
Due to many fake ICO's cheating the investors without any developments from them even after raising very good amount during the crowdsale. Once there is some regulation we might see real anticipation of developments. This regulation might help the people to find the potential projects.
I have met many projects like you said, but at the present time. Most projects receive investment from large investment funds, leaving only about 20% of the money that ICOs get from small investors. So there will be many people wondering why they get softcap and hardcap but their community is very small
Presenting direction of ICOs is an appreciated plan to me since this will checkmate the deceitful ones and financial specialists will have certainty and trust on their well deserved cash in the other hand the greater part of this ICOs will ask for KYC of which the vast majority are frequently attempting to maintain a strategic distance from hence continually concealing their personalities which constantly.
I think it's good for investors and bounty hunters. Because quantity of scam ICOs will decrease if scammers will take some responsobility.
investors might gains with chance on security as the decision on investment to put on projects with the ico scheme to collects on excess as compounding funds as preparing tasks on supports to manage of tasks with drafts of the initials and gains with chance as attaining market of service with offers of goods on reference with product from the company.
it seems like ico is difficult to manage by anyone, this can lead to pros and cons within the community, ico cenderuing is viewed negatively because fraud often occurs, perhaps regulation for crypto is still difficult to implement.
Not easy to find good and trusted ICO to join it. Not all ICO will be raise their hardcap and not all while their hardcap raised will be good in future. Because there are many ICO is fake/scam.
It seems that in the ICO area there is no regulation at all. Maybe now something has changed.
Positive in terms of searching the real persons from restricted countries. And it is also positive to develop more strong project and can easily manage.
Negative side is to make things complicated from government to crypto. Crypto to people. And people to government.
There are more possible positive and negative sides.
Negative side is to make things complicated from government to crypto. Crypto to people. And people to government.
There are more possible positive and negative sides.
Jump to: