Topic: Should altcoin ico owners be allowed to invest in their own platform? (Read 373 times)
September 05, 2016, 08:03:55 PM
The bottom line here it all depends on you and what you think as an investor. If you have a funny feeling inside of you not to invest then do not invest. For me it is important who the development team is and what work they have done in the past. If they are anonymous you should avoid them. They could possibly be scammers. It is also important that they go to devcons and meetups to show that who they claim to be is really them.
September 05, 2016, 09:54:02 AM
They may invest in their own project during ICO or first day of trading just to boost their coin's trading volume to get into top list of coin by daily volume. However for sure ICO owners will hold their coin rather than putting their bitcoin as why should they invest in their own coin as they have a large stakes of their coin as dev funds. ICO coins these days have just became a way to get free bitcoin for owners and after they get enough ICO funds they update like only in months or even after 3-4 months.
September 05, 2016, 09:49:04 AM
There should be a way to enforce how much the developers buy from their own ICOs, also same goes for the premining. In the pre mining at least we can see it through the blockchain, but we can't know about ICOs as far as I know.
September 05, 2016, 09:26:07 AM
Not only should be able to invest, they should have to at the same price/terms as early adopters to ensure alignment on making the whole exercise successful. Not really enforceable, sadly.
September 05, 2016, 06:24:19 AM
There is no way of enforcing this. But for me they should be allowed to invest so that they will have a stake in their own project. That should motivate them to try to do their jobs.
September 05, 2016, 02:52:38 AM
Why not? If they invest in their own platform isn't it proving that they believe in it and the ICOs get some additional funds even if it's from the owners themselves. I think it doesn't matter who invests or not. What matters is how much funds the project raised and how well the team is utilizing the funds and whether the project is genuine or not.
well... don't they get the funds even if it fails?
a guy with alot of btc could easily artificially inflate the stats to make it look bad for others.. for example, antshares could invest 2000 btc into their own platform just to inflate stats, and then say "5000 btc raised!"
September 05, 2016, 02:30:42 AM
Why not? If they invest in their own platform isn't it proving that they believe in it and the ICOs get some additional funds even if it's from the owners themselves. I think it doesn't matter who invests or not. What matters is how much funds the project raised and how well the team is utilizing the funds and whether the project is genuine or not.
September 05, 2016, 02:29:58 AM
also, i think it would be interesting to see historical data of which icos had their owners invest in them i.e
did vitalik invest into eth ico?
did vitalik invest into eth ico?
September 05, 2016, 02:24:30 AM
Is it possible to enforce this?
In my opinion - ico owners should NOT be allowed to invest into their own platform
It is basically like they are making free money because they get the funds anyway, it is also falsifying the stats.
If true ico platform owners believed in their platform, they would invest in it themselves, because it would be like getting 2x the amount of money (coins+btc)
In my opinion - ico owners should NOT be allowed to invest into their own platform
It is basically like they are making free money because they get the funds anyway, it is also falsifying the stats.
If true ico platform owners believed in their platform, they would invest in it themselves, because it would be like getting 2x the amount of money (coins+btc)
Jump to: