Topic: Is ICO regulation good or bad? - page 3. (Read 31573 times)
Regulated usage doesn't mean that everything will happen good in a perfect way and there won't be anymore scams with ico. This isn't gonna happen with the ICO market in the short or in the long term. Governments always try to keep their citizens safe in all regards, but there will be loopholes in each and everything. Same is with bitcoin, whether it is regulated or free to use it will have issues and flaws which is common as things were taking place through internet.
Well, here the market can answer this question. Probably, ideally, there should be two types of projects that are regulated by the state or organization and other projects without regulation. So the investor will have a choice. It is always good when there is a choice.
If the ICO will be regulated, it will be great news, because there will not be a lot of non-working projects that are now in the ICO very much and, of course, people's interest in the ICO will return.
It is the worst thing we can do with our industry, because crypto currencies are standing for anonymity and any third party will destroy our main aims. But we definitely need to find a way of how to protect investors from participating in scam projects.
ICO regulation is good in my own opinion because it will help to reduce scam projects that's currently rampant in cryptocurrency industry, it will also to reduce a lot of low quality projects.
Yes right, the presence of ICO has been very important to make investors trust again to put their money at ICO, 2017 is the best year for ICO, many projects have successfully achieved hardcap even when pre-sale, but unfortunately this is used for scam, regulation will stop scam projects.
ICO regulation is good in my own opinion because it will help to reduce scam projects that's currently rampant in cryptocurrency industry, it will also to reduce a lot of low quality projects.
Yes right, the presence of ICO has been very important to make investors trust again to put their money at ICO, 2017 is the best year for ICO, many projects have successfully achieved hardcap even when pre-sale, but unfortunately this is used for scam, regulation will stop scam projects.
ICOs need to be regulated in order to put many stuffs on check. Due to the lack of regulations, there have been reported issues on scam projects. This has made some projects to forgo ICOs. Projects prefer STOs and IEOs recently. ICO can bounce back to normal if it is regulated to check the scam projects.
We will probably see the market regulation soon, the government are aiming for regulation as that's the only way to protect investors. ICO is good actually since even ordinary people can participate, most of them only requires a low minimum, so they need to revive their reputation along with the timely support of the government by regulating the ICO market. Of the total combined amount collected during the past, it has help the market to grow, but because of bear market it leads to dump and major coins are affected.
ICOs need to be regulated in order to put many stuffs on check. Due to the lack of regulations, there have been reported issues on scam projects. This has made some projects to forgo ICOs. Projects prefer STOs and IEOs recently. ICO can bounce back to normal if it is regulated to check the scam projects.
It has always a good decision for me. I know that it highly affects the money raised in an ICO but when we think about it, most of that money are invested into scams. It hurts me most that the new investors are going to experience the worse that they will leave crypto for good. We need to accept or more people will loss and suffer if we wish to remove it.
Regulation is critical for the big ICOs, so I agree with the mentioned logic. Good decisions take time and we have enough time to test the power of regulation on the crypto ecosystem.
Now we see the regulated ICO, which are held on exchanges and are now called IEO.
And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
IEOs have no deep connection with the outdated ICOs. In my opinion, the regulation brings more bureaucracy to the free version of ICO. And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
Now we see the regulated ICO, which are held on exchanges and are now called IEO.
And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
Yes I agree not only the customer will have the KYC but also the project so it is good having an regulated ICO it is more safety than usual and having regulated ICO makes me feel more comfortable when investing. Its good to see that people find a way to implement that. And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
Now we see the regulated ICO, which are held on exchanges and are now called IEO.
And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
IEOs have no deep connection with the outdated ICOs. In my opinion, the regulation brings more bureaucracy to the free version of ICO. And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
On the one hand, I think that this is very cool, but now after I see that there are negative aspects of all this, I think that there will be a really awful situation here. In any case, the success of the project will show the last stage of development.
The situation is changed against the investors after the increase of scam ICOs. Contradictory projects make it critical to invest in such ICOs and investor looks for other ways to diversify the portfolio. The more coins on the portfolio the less risk to lose the initial amount of investment.all depends on the coins in the portfolio, indeed there are many coins in the portfolio that can reduce the loss of our investment, but if it turns out the coins do not have good potential for future development it is the same when everything grows but some the coin has no growth at all.
Now we see the regulated ICO, which are held on exchanges and are now called IEO.
And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
And this is good, most projects grow in value. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation of ICO is good.
Dated back to 2017
I have to say the post author has been right but since no body bother to find means to regulate icos
We now have ieos and icos are having a good rest at the moment
It seems to me that the IEO will not be heard for very long and in time ICO will return to its attention in due course, because the sphere of ICO is more promising for both investors and creators I have to say the post author has been right but since no body bother to find means to regulate icos
We now have ieos and icos are having a good rest at the moment
Dated back to 2017
I have to say the post author has been right but since no body bother to find means to regulate icos
We now have ieos and icos are having a good rest at the moment
I have to say the post author has been right but since no body bother to find means to regulate icos
We now have ieos and icos are having a good rest at the moment
On the one hand, I think that this is very cool, but now after I see that there are negative aspects of all this, I think that there will be a really awful situation here. In any case, the success of the project will show the last stage of development.
I have read a lot of stories about scam ICOs cheating investors of their money recently. So unfortunately, some sort of regulation may be necessary in the ICO market. KYC should be made mandatory for the ICO team and they should be required to undergo regular audits, to make sure that the funds are not diverted or stolen.
Now coming to the criticism against regulation. The OP has argued that it may make the ICO more expensive, and in the end the small scale users won't be able to purchase the coins. For me, this argument sounds very ridiculous. You can't request Microsoft to lower the value of their stock, saying that the middle-class individuals are not able to afford it.
Now coming to the criticism against regulation. The OP has argued that it may make the ICO more expensive, and in the end the small scale users won't be able to purchase the coins. For me, this argument sounds very ridiculous. You can't request Microsoft to lower the value of their stock, saying that the middle-class individuals are not able to afford it.
I think ICO regulations is the best thing that ICOs and the cryptocurrency market need right now because the rate of scam activities carried out which ICOs is alarming which is discouraging investors from investing in the ico. If ICOs should get regulated, then investors will feel safe to invest in ICOs and it will have good effect on the general market.
Jump to: