i think ICO regulation should be launched to help control irregularities and scams.There are soo much ICO's upcoming this days without unrealistic white paper and business model.
Topic: Is ICO regulation good or bad? - page 25. (Read 31583 times)
yes ICOs need to be regulated so decrease the scam ICOs,but ban is not a good idea.
Yes I think it's a good thing to have regulations so that people can easily issue ICO’s while being tight enough so that people don’t obviously get scammed. There are some good ICOs, but they should have terms, conditions, incentives and protections.
Regulation in each ICO is very important, so that anyone will partake in it will have an idea about the terms and conditions it has. And so far, this was being implemented to all ICO that I encountered every time I tried to applied there whether participants of their bounty or investors.
I must say I agree, good point!
Yes I think it's a good thing to have regulations so that people can easily issue ICO’s while being tight enough so that people don’t obviously get scammed. There are some good ICOs, but they should have terms, conditions, incentives and protections.
Regulation in each ICO is very important, so that anyone will partake in it will have an idea about the terms and conditions it has. And so far, this was being implemented to all ICO that I encountered every time I tried to applied there whether participants of their bounty or investors.
I believe that regulations will help us and reduce the amount of similar icos and scam. Of course regulation need to be smart, and give opportunity for good projects with good ideas. I think it helps us save our money and time for reading information about hundreds icos
For me ICO regulation is really a good
thing. And I suggest the Tokenlab for
you guys, it is really a great project.
The nice thing about it is that it protects
both participant and the creator.
thing. And I suggest the Tokenlab for
you guys, it is really a great project.
The nice thing about it is that it protects
both participant and the creator.
The need to regulate the implementation of ICO projects has long been ripe. This should be done by specific states on its territory. Regulation should include the ability to identify the team of this project and check for professional suitability for this in order to reduce the likelihood of fraud risks and protect the rights of investors and other persons participating in this ICO.
Precious Metal manipulation, LIBOR manipulation, insider trading, delayed market info etc etc.. Even regulated markets are risky and no amount of regulation will fix it.
So I say, investors should do their own due dilligence and rely more on the reputation of the project. eg LISK has open books, public meetings, real people with real names etc, which is therefore a more trustworthy project than a completely anonymous project with little in the way of accountability.
The market will price it in, the forums encourage people to share their stories and in the end a good project will do well, and a shitty one will taper off. A regulator is not going to return anyones lost funds regardless, and an "approved" idea might also fail.
Look at BTC.. That is an example of the market accepting that the founder is anonymous (and therefore not possible to be an "approved" ICO), but the project is a runaway success.
Buying into an as yet not realised idea is always going to be a gamble and high risk. I've bought in too early a few times, now I'm not going to invest in any ICO because "most of the time" two months later, the token or whatever is involved will be half price or less. And then has to stand on it's own merit and show actual viability to be priced above the ICO price, so better off buying the dip and seeing what people are saying after the launch if you think it's got potential.
But I get that exchanges need to protect themselves as well. So regulation in the country the exchange operators are in makes sense. But how is a regulator going to be able to evaluate the state of an ICO on behalf of an exchange who wants to or has been paid to list a particular token/coin?
So I say, investors should do their own due dilligence and rely more on the reputation of the project. eg LISK has open books, public meetings, real people with real names etc, which is therefore a more trustworthy project than a completely anonymous project with little in the way of accountability.
The market will price it in, the forums encourage people to share their stories and in the end a good project will do well, and a shitty one will taper off. A regulator is not going to return anyones lost funds regardless, and an "approved" idea might also fail.
Look at BTC.. That is an example of the market accepting that the founder is anonymous (and therefore not possible to be an "approved" ICO), but the project is a runaway success.
Buying into an as yet not realised idea is always going to be a gamble and high risk. I've bought in too early a few times, now I'm not going to invest in any ICO because "most of the time" two months later, the token or whatever is involved will be half price or less. And then has to stand on it's own merit and show actual viability to be priced above the ICO price, so better off buying the dip and seeing what people are saying after the launch if you think it's got potential.
But I get that exchanges need to protect themselves as well. So regulation in the country the exchange operators are in makes sense. But how is a regulator going to be able to evaluate the state of an ICO on behalf of an exchange who wants to or has been paid to list a particular token/coin?
First thing that skeptical investors are afraid of Cryptocurrency is that it is not regulated by any government body. If ICO regulation will push thru, then this is a good progress for any cryptocurrency since more people will be interested to dive into investing on ICO. This will also eliminate those scam and ponzi ICO that is infesting the Crypto community today.
Its not literally bad because they putting a rules and regulations to make the ICO better, to make nice and good for the user so that why are we saying that the regulation is bad they putting that for the user to avoid scammer and for the better of this ICO so dont questioning their rules.
ICO regulations are indeed good and most importantly they are required. There are so many ICOs coming everyday with maximum being scam and shit. In that mess, genuine and potential ICOs lost somewhere and aren't able to raise what they can. So, I believe regulations are required to filter out real projects out of lot which will make investor's life easier and deserving projects won't shut down because of not raising enough. I think this the high time to regulate ICOs.
Yes I think it's a good thing to have regulations so that people can easily issue ICO’s while being tight enough so that people don’t obviously get scammed. There are some good ICOs, but they should have terms, conditions, incentives and protections.
there should be regulation for preventing the scam as there are so many icos poping out everyday but not for disrupting the anonymity of the transactions.
It is a good thing for scam prevention but yet there are those people who want to upgrade their services thru iCO but cant because of the bamming system.
I vote for the regulation of ICO as long as they wont rake anything from it. If it just for greed then no way.
I vote for the regulation of ICO as long as they wont rake anything from it. If it just for greed then no way.
This is a must read on ICO regulation: http://eurocrowd.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/sites/85/2017/10/ECN_Review_of_Crowdfunding_Regulation_2017.pdf
In general, the state regulation of crypto-currency should be treated positively. States can not long not pay attention to processes that decently influence their economy. Therefore, they can either prohibit the circulation of crypto currency in the country, which is extremely rare, or establish rules for its circulation inside the country. The negative aspect of such regulation is the possible process of identifying a person when exchanging, buying or selling crypto currency for the purpose of levying income tax on operations with crypto currency.
Yeah I agree, but I personally think ICO regulation is a great idea now that there are a lot of ICO projects. More ICO projects and more likely the possibility of scams, so if they are being regulated then for sure they will also lessen the chances of being scammed.
ICO regulation is a very good and needed thing. We can see that there are 30+ ICOs a month, no assurance against scam or so.
I really believe in regulation and hope we will have the same amount ICOs in 2018 as in 2017, but it looks like a dream. I want to have more projects like confideal
In general, the state regulation of crypto-currency should be treated positively. States can not long not pay attention to processes that decently influence their economy. Therefore, they can either prohibit the circulation of crypto currency in the country, which is extremely rare, or establish rules for its circulation inside the country. The negative aspect of such regulation is the possible process of identifying a person when exchanging, buying or selling crypto currency for the purpose of levying income tax on operations with crypto currency.
ICO regulation will have a good impact if a country can accept Cryptocurrency. And vice versa. Because every regulation has good intentions for investors, to avoid unofficial investment. So, the regulation is good.
There's a good and bad idea of regulating the ICO in the country. First is getting the money from the ICO (taxes), second, having the fair quantity of tokens every individvual and lastly, no rights to own an ICO. Jump to: