Topic: my idea (Read 336 times)

A lot of these scammers will start with a legitimate scam and work on a long con to draw people into the scam. So they will honor their commitments and they will market it aggressively and pay their bounties, but they eventually turn scam. These people will go to huge lengths to hide the true facts that it is just a long con.

Some of them start out as a legitimate business, but when they see that it is not going to work and that they are going to lose money, then it turns scam and they do a quick exit with the investors money.

The specialists must be very good to spot these scams. Where are you going to find these people and how much are you going to have to pay them?

The purpose of decentralization will be for nothing if the OP is aiming for centralization. As we all know, satoshi nakamoto's creation aiming for decentralized system. I think the op wants to have power in the system that he want or the idea that the op has correct me if i'm wrong about what I just stated.

Test, even I was interested in having such thing involved with the use of an Authority to take on these ICOs and do a thorough check before allowing investors to put their money in, but now I know that greed is something that can buy anything (even a human's integrity) so believing anybody isn't worth it but doing a deep research before putting in your money into a project is what you need to do till such Authority ever exists (and even if these big guys give a "Yes" to a few trustworthy-looking projects, nobody can guarantee that they will not run away with your money or keep up their words in long term).



Even people from SEC Commission maybe involved in few of these ICO scams and who knows who ate how much bribery to get in? There's nobody trustworthy for such purposes and I've understood it well and that's why this (Bitcoin) system is made trust-less to do everything without the involvement of anybody.

this type of due diligence costs of a lot of money---extensive payroll, administration, and travel expenses. if the viability model is to take payment for a rubber stamp certification from them, you'll see lots of conflicts of interest.

like a regulator license, it will become a barrier to entry for legitimate projects. maybe they should just register with the SEC instead. i'd feel much more comfortable investing in an SEC-registered company than a "crypto anti-scam rubber stamping" company.

This would have been a great idea last year at this time.
Unfortunately, the ICO era is already dead.
These new "projects" are a complete joke.
All of the real projects are seeking private venture funding.

Yes it does, and we’ve been stuck in a rut of banks controlling everything for far too long. Hence why we have decentralisation. Decentralised collaboration is much better than centralised control of the networks.

You are proposing that a company should trust another individual with millions of $.
Let me ask you this. Would you agree that I keep all your money, the money of your family and relatives, friends and partners for safety reasons so that you dont end up scamming each other?
That goes against the whole belief in a decentralized ecosystem.

Your idea centre of having a centralised company that will regulate ICO which will also not good for the initial idea of the blockchain. My advice is that we should go back to how Bitcoin started. Bitcoin didn't start with ICO. Majority of those companies are the centre of making money for themselves from the hard earning of the investors. They don't have the investors in mind. The project is not their major concern, but the money they want to make through the ICO. This is the reasons why many ICOs are failing.  I wanted to do a post concern this issue to stop ICO or regulate the number of ICO per a year with serious scrutinization of the ICOs before with different ICO Analysts before they are allowed to sell their ICO. 

How do you guarantee that the ANTISKAM company will not collude with scammer? Take a look at the current rating website, you just pay them and you can get any rating you want.
Relying on a centralized organization to supervise another centralized organization not only does not stop scam, but it can also lead to abuse of power, which is too bad.
Unless this ANTISKAM company is authorized by the government and there is a law regulating their behavior, a spontaneous and absolutely fair third party is unlikely to exist in my opinion. But this is very difficult, because ICO investors usually come from all over the world, it is difficult to have such a universally recognized institution,this means that it is necessary to internationally confirm the legal status of crypto.

well so far i have seen many of these so called "companies" that start analyzing ICOs and give advice about their being scam or not. what happens is that nobody ever works for free! they want money. so eventually after gaining some tiny popularity they start thinking about ways of monetizing that tiny popularity.
the best way to monetize it is to get paid by ICOs to advertise them! basically they end up advertising any ICO that pays the most and forget what is scam and what is not.

besides ICO is a flawed concept anyways. there is no reason for a developer of a cryptocurrency to want to do an initial coins offering to earn money if they truly believe in their own production! i always compare things with bitcoin. Satoshi never used an ICO because he wasn't creating bitcoin to make money from it. but all those who use ICO are doing it to make money and nothing else.

Well, at this time, investors draw conclusions based on what information they see on the Internet
Yes, here you can make anything at all, and it is not surprising that so much SKAM

You are basically along the idea of having a centralized entity that approves or disapproves an ICO. That is way too much power there, concentrated in the hands of a few.

Even defining what a scam is not as simple as it may seem, since the idea is to catch them before and not after the scam takes place. At what point would an ICO pass the test? (whitepaper, first deliveries on road map, full product implementation, etc.). Normally, ICOs tend to search for funds based on a whitepaper, a team and a website, with a few having a semi-working product as proof of concept. Creating documentation is not that difficult, so giving an ICO a pass at this stage may well get it wrong. 

On the other hand, many ICOs start off with an idea which is really not a market breaker from the get-go. Today I saw a guy asking how much interest would be risen for an ICO for producing natural and energetic drinks. I would say that there is no crypto-related need for this ICO for neither the consumer not the investor, but the whitepaper, team and website they create may be smashing. Is this going to be a scam? Possibly, or at the very least a likely bad investment, but how can that be determined formally from the get-go?

Quite a bit more can be done for sure though, and regulation will likely start to stick their noses in at some point or other. We’ll see how that goes and what it entails.

In basic terms, you are suggesting regulations of ICOs to prevent scam by putting a central body incharg of validating projects.

You would also need to put a body to supervise the control system to ensure they don't get involved in scams themselves. In essence, the system would always be flawed.

My issue with having trust in one central company is that company itself could scam.

!. That would take a company able to review the entire coins source code to check there was no way for the developer to reclaim the coins and also check the executables can be reconstructed from the same source ode to ensure nothing sinister is hiding in those.
2. Such a company would have to have full access to the wallets before the ico end date and hold the funds (potentially)?

There doesn’t seem like a simple way to do this that wouldn’t be entirely risk free. I don’t understand why we can’t use a system that currencies such as bitcoin uses. If the developers want to make money why not do like they did with bitcoin gold and mine a few % for themselves before opening the network and then send that money to an exchange. To me, having an ICO at all means that the project has some weaknesses because the development team aren’t able to stand behind their own code and take the fall if the coin devalues by a great amount.

Every year a huge number of ICO companies that collect billions of dollars. Some 80% are SKAM companies and the money that is invested there goes to scammers, why not create a current ANTISKAM company that will be engaged in in-depth testing of such ICO projects. I don’t mean to one person this idea came to mind by advertisements collecting people all the working staff is ready, no, I’m talking about a team of professionals of various types where every great specialist in his area can’t cheat to hide something from him. This check should go as far as personal meetings, check all the documentation, check all employees so that they completely shove everything, and all information about this company will be kept on their website or, on request, they will give you full information. Well, they are accurate information with regards to the money raised and this information is somehow supported by documents. That is, the investor seeing this information can be sure that this company really exists.

The question is growing up on what money the company will exist? This test will cost money, and the investor has the right to request that the ICO pass this test or, ideally, all ICO projects should pass this test without fail.

Think about how much money Dene go to scammers. It seems to me that this company will never be without money

Well, how do you like the idea? Do you think she has any future ones?