Topic: Should IPOs be banned from the site? Poll - page 5. (Read 6777 times)

I'd treat them more seriously if there wasn't a new one every 2 days.

they dont need to be banned, they need to be treated more seriously, as more money is moving into these markets. if it doesnt seem like a real company or team or group of developers is backing the coin, it shouldnt be allowed. if something randomly changes after lauchn, like a 600billion premine or whatever, it should instantly be shunned by the community and not allowed on any exchanges.as this market grows more steps are needed to legitamize it for all of our well-being

nice way to slant opinion by calling them IPOs...   I don't view any of these coins as actual coins... I view them as an experiment in algorithms, more a scientific experiment with social impact...  Scrypt is easy right now so everyone is creating their altcons... but in the event that a big ASIC comes out or a better algo comes out scrypt will probably go away... even SHA-256...

That's very old joke - where have you been dude! 

This is the best!! Sorry I got to steal this one. I will never forget it!!

 

dont forget people 86.65% of all statistics are made up!


I voted no - an IPO itself isnt a bad thing, people just need to be able to spot a scam from a legitimate offering. People invest in all kinds of crazy things in the real world, they should be allowed to in the crypto world imo - i just wish people would risk less and not get so burnt when things do go wrong >.<

You contradict yourself many times in this post.

I hate people who think if they don't like something, then no one should be allowed to like it.

These people are what ruins the world.

The reason is roach a huge miner.

So he tries to get rid of coins he cant mine

ROTFLMFAO

Just let people use their own brain to make their own investment/gambling decision.

Yes IPOs should be banned, i never do ipo. I need proofs of coin working and everyone should do the same.

Freedom is a tricky concept. Personally I'd feel less free if the society I lived in allowed individuals to try scam me without consequences. The scammers at the same time I'm sure would fell more free if this behavior was allowed. If you scam someone on the free market you are talking about your freedom will pay the price, i.e. jail time.

Freedom for scammers has nothing to do with free markets.

ethereum's 30M$ fundraiser was stopped by negative campaigns (actually there is more negative things I would have to say about this, but I actually hope they do some work). It didn't stop by itself. Next time there can be a more efficient process. People will then link to old discussions / guidelines. If you want to raise money, follow this, otherwise you will be campaigned against. Negative campaigners can have bad incentives, too. In the real world we have all kinds of laws, from securities laws to libel, etc. Imagine somebody using violence to achieve their financial ends, then things get ugly.

Nobody needs to "build a coin up" that is exactly the point. You have essentially defined a pump-and-dump scheme right there.

But it doesn't need to be banned. People just need to stop falling for it. When there is no demand the game is up.

This is not a democracy: the site owners can ban whatever they want. You have read my opinion, no more.

That's a real knee slapper.  Trying to perform guilt by association comparing me to a racial supremacist, Jewish man shilling for central bankers in his cult.

Can you address the multiple conflicts of interest outlined in my previous post above yours.  The progression of these activities I talked about will eventually lead to such a divergence in site content from the original purpose of the website, that people advertising plastic lawn chairs for sale will be more on topic.

many thanks for the thread. important question. is there a list of IPO's / fundraisers somewhere?

I would argue: large IPOs (1M$+) should be not allowed, in the sense that people should speak out against them and told that these are darkpatterns which are not wanted. so there is a continuum of outright banning, restricting and just campaigning against them.

if somebody wants to launch a CorporateCoin or eGold 2.0, do that outside the community. nobody wants it. bitcoin was designed precisely to avoid problems with eGold. a corporation can be attacked in various ways, or use its influence in various ways.

on the other hand problem is how to define "IPO"? somebody asking to be paid - is that an IPO? do you want to restrict all BTC flows and how? then you get into the question of potential admin corruption, i.e. "ban this person asking for money, and i'll pay you x BTC." another example is link to a Kickstarter. actually with BTC assurance contracts we can have a much better version of kickstarter.

my sugggestion: somebody opens up a thread and discusses some guidelines. then anyone can link to those guidelines, the next time somebody asks for a million bucks, he will be shown a flag: this is a darkpattern, established by discussion in this thread.

i.e. you want to raise 30 M$ without putting in a dime in yourself? => that is not a good idea.

some dark patterns:

* money beyond covering reasonable expenses (300k$ p.a. is highend)
* no skin in the game
* a lot of marketing based on non facts
* referencing law of the country. if you're raising in BTC, there is no law covering this, unless you have proof, i.e. legal docs to back up your claims

Ooooh. I get it now, those IPO's. I thought that was just shorthand for all the new issues, you're talking about the whole other system.

Well point stands I learn way faster from the arguments and factions than I would without them. That said I'll bow out and read along now that I know what I don't know. Thanks.

A classic Krugman approach.

1. define a problem
2. conceive the arguments of the opponent yourself
3. smash those arguments
4. declare yourself winner

I voted no. Regardless of what OP and I think, people can and should think for themselves. They should be able to choose the coin they like or create their own. If coins are scams, better learn fast.

OP is somehow trying to ban the sun (sunlight is free, just as open source software).

Oh please, you're talking to someone that helped work on Ron Paul coin, they quoted what I wrote on the evening news, I know what a free market is.  There are a lot of angles to this, but this is a privately owned website created for an open source, software platform called Bitcoin.  This isn't a stock exchange or government institution.  They have extended site functionality to support forks of that open source software, referred to as "altcoins", but an IPO is dramatically different content.

I've already covered how the self proclaimed, "second generation", proof of stake cryptocurrencies do not actually need IPOs to function.  Things like the Ethereum IPO exist solely to enrich the currency issuer.  Bitcoin was not designed from the ground up solely to enrich the creator.  It was designed as an open source, software solution to reign in the power of currency issuers.  The IPO scamsters are also attempting to move towards closed source as well.  There is a clear conflict of interest.

It's the equivalent of some guy burning copies of Linux and trying to sell it on the street corner.  Sure, he can do whatever the hell he wants, but you don't have to allow him to post his ads for the discs on your privately owned, open source, Linux website.  That's what a "free market" is.

What's next?  Everyone will start charging $20 to download the wallet for their new crap coin?  We will start difficulty at 0.00000, but you have to pay money to download the wallet!  I don't care if they altered some, or most of the code, they're still trying to make money off an open source software project, while also trying to convert to closed source at the same time.  If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.