Topic: Which do you prefer anonymous developer/creator or well revealed person? (Read 665 times)

i personally would prefer well reputable person with good portfolio lead the project. not some shady keyboard warrior. even when we invest on any company we need to know who is owner of the business and it physical operations.

Exactly! Now that people have been a victim of several scams in the ICO space, I really do not expect anyone to fall for an anonymous developer. As far as team is concerned in any project, it is always very interesting to know where you are putting your investments.

This is the thing a lot of investors are mostly particular about in this day and age when scams are increasing by the day, is to investigate the team properly so you can know where you are placing your funds.

Bitcoin is a special cryptocurrency, Bitcoin is 100% trustworthy to all investors so knowing the identity of the founder is not important. But for all the altcoin now I want to know who made it and stand behind it. Because there are so many ICO scam and altcoin scam, I would like to know and only invest in those altcoin or ico that have a clean founder.

Well, at the present day and age, an anonymous developer would not have been able to go far in any case and I guess we will just have to leave that title only to satoshi nakomoto who still remains anonymous till date.

Considering the level of scam in the space, a lot of investors want to know what and who they are investing their money on. Bitcoin on the other hand started as the foundation and over the years has been able to gain support and reputation, and any developer trying to come on an anonymous ground at this point in time, will only be wasting his or her time.

Bitcoin is the first successful digital currency, and it was a revolution at the time.
The anonymity of the creator added to the awe around it.
Moving on, as knowledge on cryptocurrency increases. People now scrutinize ICOs more. And a well known creator is necessary. If he/she is an upstart. Then they could partner with a credible individual in that field.

I think I should call the developer better than any other name, whose name can not be called anonymous. For me, the most important thing is the incredible growth cycle of the market.

It a world full of speculations, we will always prefer transparency. We will always want to know the team or the person behind a project so that we can avoid being scam. Knowing them and their background is a huge trust factor. However, there are instances where developers tend to stay anon, especially in terms of security purposes.

I think this questions arising from the fact that the creator of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin is actually an anonymous person by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto, yes it's true that the revealing an identity creates trust in the product but bitcoin is the most popular product without any revelation

if we this questions come in 2015,, i would say its better an anonymous dev,, just like bitcoin 
but, for now, well known developer is the best choice, to reduce the risk from scam activity

Bitcoin is an exception, except for a few projects like those that are related to anonymity coins the rest of the developers should reveal their identity and if they do not do it then that is a huge red flag and you should not invest in their project at all, I know there are some people that do not mind but with the amount of scams in the market we cannot be too reckless with our investments.

The problem with not disclosing names is like I said the exit scam situation.

We don't know who satoshi, he has (allegedly) 1,000,000 BTC. We don't know if it's a group, a lot of people, or a single guy about to become the richest person on earth. It's kind of fucked up if you think about it.

But the same time, it was non viable that he would reveal his identity, it would only damage the project.

I guess in 70 years or so it will be reasonable to think he is dead and the coins will never move (assuming he was a young developer), assuming he doesn't leave them to someone else, which is just unlikely.

There's no easy solution to this. Maybe ideally satoshi should have coded something that made his coins slowly go back into circulation as mining rewards.

Lets come closer about it.
If someone create Coin about anonimity or provide anonymous service for me this team will be more transparent because if they reveal who they are this is joke and team could be manipulate by someone bigger. If they provide fruits of work they earn my believe like XMR team.
If someone create something what should be transparent or provide transparent service so yes I want them to tell us who they are. Because they should propably scam us.

I agree with you! I would not also open my name and the names of my team members. Not in the names of the matter, but in their ingenious invention. Communicating your name to the public, a person who owns a lot of bitcoins (I'm sure) puts himself at risk.

IMO, it depends on whether the coin is raising funds from the public. In the case of raising funds, the investors will definitely want to know who is the team behind.

As for Bitcoin case, the community can choose to receive Bitcoin through mining or investing but there aren’t any crowd fund paying to Satoshi.

As everything in life, ith as pros and cons, and you must leverage these positives and negatives and see where the balance leans to.

If you are an anonymous creator, your safety is going to be in better standing than if you are a public figure. If no one knows your real name and your appearance, you don't have to worry about having a visit in the middle of the night of thieves of sorts, going from random criminals to state-backed ones which will try to kill anything and anyone that dares to change the status quo (see how other attempts at alternative money ended up before Bitcoin)

It also helps the project and not having a clear leader in which people typically form cult personalities around. If the creator disappears, then it's up to the community. No one can ever have that much of an influence in the project. It's just not desirable to have a clear leader, with political views, opinions, and other things. Ideally you want someone totally anonymous, neutral, with no big claims on anything, just delivering the code then leaving, as satoshi did.

The problem with being anonymous is it generally raises the chances of an exit scam, since you would be easier for the creator to get the money and run without consequences.

revealed person is better, coz (in case i invest in x ICO) i want to know person whom i give trust to grow my money, is he capable or only has useless idea. i believe too you won't ask some strangers you don't know anything about them, or even only screen name to grow your money

We would always prefer transparency when it comes to developers of a certain project because we don't like for us to be blinded on whose people behind it but well there are projects that do have anonymous developers but still they end up successful but only to few projects.
Example is Bitcoin itself we do know how anonymous Satoshi is but we do see on its creation flying with colors.

I agree Nakamoto is not that anonymous he only became one after bitcoin succeeding in the internet, and I don't think Nakamoto is a good creator since the purpose of the coin was to be used on daily basis but instead it became an investment or an asset, it is a good thing Nakamoto made bitcoin but for it to take path on a different ways is not a good thing for the creator.

BITTTTTCONNNNNNNECT!! We all knew who they were. Didnt change anything.

developers who try to stay anonymous more times than not tend to be scam artist, the more you know about someone the more confidence ul have in a project.

I will never invest in a project that I don't know the developers, it is too risky, most people sometimes refer to Bitcoin, but then BTC has no value all you need is just a PC to mine and one has nothing to lose, but now we see project collecting millions and disappearing with the fund, who are you going to pick if the developer is anonymous

In the ICO projects, all the developers of the companies must be disclosed, so I would also not risk and invest in a project that would have hidden the developers. Do I find such ICO very doubtful?

Bitcoin is the first crypto been created and anonymous creator will not be really an issue yet we havent known yet on where this coin would go to until it do make a revolutionary innovation where it did succeed as the years goes by and now people do keep on seeking on satoshis identity but well it doesnt matter because we do know on what is the main purpose why bitcoin is being created.
For now on current projects it is normal for us investors to seek out transparency on the team behind the project.On all scams that do exist on the market we would definitely seek out transparency which somehow give us some confidence on investing.

Bitcoin does not need his leader, he has made a name on another. But the rest of the coins live only at the expense of the team and the leader who must correctly understand when and in what direction it is necessary to carry out development and which sides to intensify.

bitcoin created by anonymous person, and this is the best part of bitcoin, why ?
and i think because of that, all decision on bitcoin is fully democracy my friend
but, in this day i think it will be better if a coins created by a well revealed person, to reduce the fraud activity

I obviously prefer a well revealed person as opposed to anonymous developer. Nowadays so many scams are taking place in crypto market that I have personally seen people losing money. Under such conditions I can’t risk my hard earned money to a anonymous developer. I will not even consider the coin if the full-fledged details of the developing team is not revealed.

I obviously prefer a well revealed person as opposed to anonymous developer. Nowadays so many scams are taking place in crypto market that I have personally seen people losing money. Under such conditions I can’t risk my hard earned money to a anonymous developer. I will not even consider the coin if the full-fledged details of the developing team is not revealed.

I'd rather anonymous as long as the project is open source. I can't stand the cult of personality that is currently being built around some crypto figures - Buterin this, Sasha that, Ver those... gawd!

With all the scammers in the crypto world it's never worth risking in an anonymous project. With still no regulations and a way to get your money back in case of fraud it's not wise to invest anything in a project whith anonymous team. Also when the team is well known you could decide for yourself if the people behing an ICO have enough expirience in the field an thus have faith in them and invest your money with them.

Well i think that in order for a coin to be considered decentralized anonymity of the founders is essential. That being said bitcoin is probably the only coin where this has worked primarily because it was the first coin/ essentially created and made the crypto market.  In todays' market however  which is littered with  scams and frauds, having a known founder that i can talk to and meet and actually verify gives some bit of security ( albeit still not enough). Accountability is critical and it is good to know that you can chase after them in case they try  and defraud you.

Your right they are anonymous. Been following them also since day 1, not all project if  their dev team is on anonymous mode that doesn't mean there is something going on.

I don’t think so that it will be justified to make a comparison of bitcoin with any other coin because bitcoin is the real backbone of the entire crypto market and that there can be no other coin which can compete with it in anyway. ETH is no doubt a very good coin but it is good at its own place and that it has nothing to do with the market value or the market cap of bitcoin.

I do not care about the identity of the creator of technology. I care about the technology itself, if it is open and decentralized and does not depend on its creator, then it can be used. If this dependence remains and it is very strong, then this technology is bad regardless of who created it anonymous or public person.

I prefer well known people for sure! because you can be sure that the ico is not scam, also probably coin will perform well in the market, also those ICOs usually reach their hard cap.

I still prefer revealed people behind the project as you have to gain trust of the people.

Big investors are going to doubt hard on something with anonymous teams as they should be the people playing with calculated risks. And one of the things I think they will be looking at is the legitimacy of the people working behind the project.

I personally prefer real identities and regular communication from the team, they days of fake details and anonymous teams have gone, tranparency is very important for new projects.

Market anymore fovors well revealed people because they actually don't create coins like bitcoin so their creators don't need to disappear to make it more decentralized. It is also not possible much as they start with a ico.

I think it does not matter who created bitkoyn. With all due respect to Vitalik Buterin, he is probably not the only one who created ETHEREUM. it doesn't matter who the developer is. the main thing is that the technology itself and cryptocurrency attracted people

Such a normal thing where projects should really display and let it on public regarding on their project informations and the team behind that one.Transparency is on what most people are looking for and as an investor knowing them would really be part of security or assurance that you wont able to lose up money or getting scammed if those creator or developer do show up their faces.This is what i do prefer compared into anonymous ones.

I think it's better to say that the creators are better, so that we can have a reliable basis for reinvesting. Anonymous development is exploited by many fake projects and eventually becomes a hoax.

You can't compare bitcoin with ethereum because bitcoin was the original and first to market so it will always be king. There are many scams these days so having a founder that is known to the public will increase confidence in the project.

I found a coin in the market called (btw) Bitwhite, the team behind the project is annonymous and wearing a mask,  but this project has a big community, and as i do a research they are actually following their roadmap, this team is interesting here is the coin info.

https://bitwhite.org
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitwhite

Most of the ICO’s has their own details about the team behind the project and I think it can be a big factor for them since investors wants to protect their capital and seeing a great team behind it, can help them decide. When you are investing its good to know the background of the team so you can be confident say that you are with the great team.

We can also consider this that not all are well acquainted to be in public communication. Let say some developers are shy type to deal with public or not really talkative. But since this is a discussion about agree to anonymousity of the creator. I assume youre answer is okay even its an anonymous dev. Right?

But if you know the authoritative people, then initially those projects in which they participate are quite promising. And this is already talking about the lack of fraud.

It's always better to know the background and capability of the developer be it any time. If you are comparing with Satoshi Nakamoto then it is an exception. Every developer isn't satoshi Nakamoto and they can't be.

It does not matter, anonymous person can scam you, person with published name, LinkedIn etc. can too. Company running a coin can go bankrupt. In each of those occasions, you lose money. How are you going to get your money back from person who does not have any money left? Putting him in prison won't return you the money How are you going to get money from company which went bankrupt and has no money?

Ask yourself - if you founded a coin which has tens or hundreds M USD marketcap and possibly have access to let's say 10% of total supply (for operations, marketing, devs etc.), would you be comfortable walking on street knowing that people know you have millions or tens of millions of USD wealth? There are legit reasons behind some cryptofounders going anonymous and I respect that.

Understanding who is on the team behind a blockchain project is perhaps the most important step in your due diligence. Even if the premise of the venture and the addressable market seem attractive, one of the biggest determinants of a venture’s success is the makeup of the team behind it.

It is often a red flag if the team behind an ICO does not have any named full-time developers. Additional caution should be taken if none of the leadership team has any domain knowledge in the specific vertical.

It should be based on personal security, so you can choose to be anonymous. I think that's why.

yea, but satoshi is one of the early legend developer. but now situation is totally different. Hundreds of altcoins exsist in the market, fake news everysecond, scammy coins or project everywhere. Will investors still get convinced if the developer is anonymous? ETH and LTC are the second and third coins and we all know their founders.

Thanks everyone, that's a load of information and positive response and feedback from you guys. Looks like majority here are in favored of known creator/developers.

The key points of most of the comment is to avoid scam and fraud investment which I think is more important since were dealing with money matters here. Regarding the development some had feedback as long as the project deemed helpful and worth it to invest even the developer is anonymous.

I appreciate all your feedback guys and hoping more members here in the forum share they thought about it. Too many ICOs are being introduced everyday and its really hard sometime especially for beginner to grasp which is not fraud.


I myself being fooled and the worse part there is I have no way to  get back whay I invested since that project had anonymous developer. But since then I learned a bit and one of a reason for posting this. Experience is the best teacher so I'll never gonna try investing again on developers with unknown background. Please don't judge me cause I've been there done that if I'm bias with this.

Even revealed person also can give the fake information, right?
I'm on pessimistic but that's the fact because for people especially new investors, it's difficult to verify them.
Just preparing yourself before you decide to invest in ICO !

It doesn't matter.

For ICO purposes, of course someone that is verified as a real life person would generate a lot more interest and get a lot more funding in my opinion than an ICO with a team that is completely anonymous. This is because of the risk factors involved in every single ICO, and the ability for the founder to just run away with your funds.

But if it's simply a project that does not have a premine or ICO, one does not need to have a verified team at all. Just like Bitcoin itself, decentralized networks doesn't need a verified founder to run, or even an active one for that sake.

But as I said, if in the strict context of ICOs, then I'd definitely prefer a known, preferably well known public figure in the crypto space.

It a world full of speculations, we will always prefer transparency. We will always want to know the team or the person behind a project so that we can avoid being scam. Knowing them and their background is a huge trust factor. However, there are instances where developers tend to stay anon, especially in terms of security purposes.

I would prefer "KNOWN" developer since there are so many scam ICO here and take note known manager is not a guarantee that you will not be scam since I was a victim of that so we should read and study the ICO carefully.

Satoshi started the evolution without raising any money and that is the main difference from rest of the scam coins and ICO. If someone is creating something innovative and do not want to raise money, they can have the privacy, if their intention is to collect money with just an idea, which is what we are seeing with all the ICO projects, they have to be transparent. None of the set up is different from the old days and satoshi is not the first developer who remained anonymous and he wont be the last.

Satoshi who started the evolution of cryptocurrency is an anonymous creator'/s, but why do people invest in it? It is because of its popularity and early adoption of blockchain technology.

ICO's nowadays needs to be fully tranparent especially for the developers, today's setup is different from the old days, there is so many ico's popping up everyday and we need to have their transparency for supporting the project.

I prefer a know and well revealed person in crypto world except for bitcoin in which the group or person built without requesting you to invest in order to buid the work. It is very hard this days to invest in a coin where you do not have a idea of the person behind the idea to avoid being scammed. Knowing the group or person behind a particular project helps you make more research about that project or boost your confidence of the project if after reading about the person or persons involved.

Agreed on this, MCafee is a famous adviser and totally make a huge hype but promotion is something you give if the project really have a potential one. Dont want to mentioned coins or tokens he advertisef but now the price is like a garbage only pumping when he do such tweets or sweet words.

So my clear answer here is known dev since the situation is changed for ICOs now unlike during Satoshi and other first generation blockchain developers whose purpose are towards development of a certain project.

bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency and everyone does not care who the Creator of many just want to earn.I distrust projects in which there are no names or faces, the creators, have to be careful with such projects

It is better to have a known developer, thanks to what Satoshi Nakamoto did, but he didn't ask us for money then to develop Bitcoin, he did it on is own and left the space when he feels other people are coming on board to drive the space forward. How many successful developers in the space can do this, it will be hard to find

Wow fair answer this make sense.But since then no project works on its own without putting ICO so we have a different situation from now and before. But in your opinion sir? ICO devs should be revealed? cause for me it should be and theres money not just money but some are big money involved with this.and its better to know whom your making a deal with.

Remember satoshi was creating bitcoin through use the blockchain effect only to give the more solution to the people to do online payment system. It's really different with ico. For ico i just prefer well-revealed person.
Because it gives the more guarantee for us, but as long as the project which has created by anonymous developer use fair distribution and it's fine.

Same with you, but I prefer the revealed creator because I think It is a person who dared to take risks, ready to accept criticism from the public and responsible person

It's clear to me, i would prefer to know who i am investing my money with. There has been simply too mean ICO exit scams to make it logical to invest your hard-earned money into something so risky. By knowing who the persons/team you are investing with, you at least are able to run after them with the law, incase they take your money.

Now I prefer known creator/developer, I know some have reasons why they hide themselves like Satoshi. But with so many schemes now I want to involved with new projects of known new creator/developer.

JL777 from Komodo has a track record going back years, so while he is anon, I wouldn't have a problem with investing in a new project from him.  However, if someone popped up today and was anon and was announcing an ICO I would be very skeptical.  It's not the name so much as the reputation behind the name. Either it's there or not.  If it's not there then it has to be earned.

I most likely prefer well known advisors (in legit way, not mcafee) There were too many scammy icos I am fed up with. All those bad icos had very unknown developers that hit and run.

I do not think about whether the creator is anonymous or publicly known. for me the most important is the extent to which its products can solve a problem and can be trusted by everyone to use or stored as a valuable asset.

Depend on what project it is. Of the project is well describes on the whitepapper and it is make sense i dont care if the developer is anonymous as long as the sorce code is opened at github. And be carefull that there are many ico put the picture of developer but it is fake pictures. I once find the project like that. And for start up which makes ico through ethereum network i prefer the dev appear for the conference and i have my own criteria to judge are that developer can really make the project worked or not.

Of course is to understand the more detailed the better! Too many frauds are too risky. The investment market is too active now. there must be a liar. it' s hard to tell true from false!

Don't really care about identity as long as the project is open source and can be audit/review by the public. I get that some people are still camera-shy in this day and age, while others loathe the limelight. Besides, public personality tend to lead to a cult of personality - so, I'd rather the project do the speak and not your face. Thank you

to answer this question i have to start with some basic facts.

when we are talking about bitcoin for instance we are talking about a decentralized currency. this may sound just like another random word but it has a deep meaning. a decentralized thing means it does NOT matter who created it, there is no owner, there is nobody with the "say" in how it will go and change in the future. there is a whole network that does all that. so when we say Satoshi Nakamoto created bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto can be anyone and it still wouldn't matter. it may be even a group of developers. in the end it is the decentralized network that decides what will be going on for bitcoin. and last year proved that perfectly when different proposals for scaling came up and the decentralized network decided its fate.

it also doesn't matter because it is open source and we can all see what bitcoin does. there is no trusting the creator here. it is trustless.

most of those projects that keep advertising about their developing team and creators are doing that because their projects aren't that good so they need a way to say "we have a strong team so our creation is good" but the reality will always triumph. for example ethereum is one of the worst altcoins that was created so far so the creator of it, Vitalik, has to go around and promote it  constantly to hype it up and get people to foolishly invest in it.

of course anonymous developer much more better compared to those revealed person,
it's much more safer because they(anonymous developer) do not have to worry about their safety,with that we could see that they can focus themself to create an advanced product or technology unlike those revealed person.
most of them were revealed themself because they want popularity,i also believe some of them got pressured by some people behind the scene.
also,cryptocurrency goals is anonymity and freedom.
so those act was out of cryptocurrency in my opinion

Can anyone tell me any project recently that has been very successful that has anonymous developers. Satoshi did the best thing them but the time has changed, we now have scams flowing around everyday deceiving investors and robbing the of their money. Centra is a good recent example assuming their faces were unknown they would have done that successfully

I believe for some coins with high anonymity it's safe for the devs to stay anonymous but for tokens/utility tokens, devs plus teams involved needs to be known 100%.

You cannot really make comparisons, satoshi created the first cryptocurrency and he was not sure if he was going to be arrested because of it you must remember that back in the day there were some arrests of people that created their own currencies, so satoshi was only trying to hid himself, now there are some anonymity coins in which their developers need to remain anonymous as well but for every other coin out there it is important to know who are the team of developers.

Even satoshi doesnt show himself on public but still we can really say that he do exist either as a 1 person or a certain group.We do know bitcoin is the first crypto circulates in the market which it would normally gain traction and popularity yet we have seen its usage and total capability when it comes to p2p payments.Anonymous but the project itself can be considered as a success and theres no doubt on that one.If we do talk into altcoin devs which are anonymous then this would already be an another story.

Komodo is going pretty successful even though their founders have pseudoanonmity. That being said I feel as the industry matures it is more important to have accountability from the founders, which is an important step on the path to regulation.

I won't touch a coin these days unless the creator is known and the management team atleast, bitcoin being an exception
Just too risky with the amount of scams going on

Lots of ICO are conducting KYC why to know the identity of the investors. But lets reverse it this way on 2 biggest Crypto Bitcoin and Etherium. Bitcoin founder is Satoshi Nakamoto while Ethereum is Vitalik Buterin between these 2, Etherium's creator revealed himself in public and roaming around the globe to raise awareness of his project to community while bitcoins`s founder still remain anonymously but his project dominate`s the market. Wow very hard to choose right?

Many people still fond of bitcoin but they don't know who actually create it. Mean what's were patronizing here is the product and not the person behind it. Logical but that's the fact. Its impossible no one knew who actually made it cause he didn't do it alone.

Now answering my title question on my opinion, I prefer the revealed creator rather than the anonymous guy even though they both have amazing product. Why? cause this will be in history and you don't want to recognize a screen name when that person make an enourmous advancement in technology.