They seem to want one huge lump sum after 24 hours or 1 month.
Real tech can present themselves to VC firms and get critical feedback on their business proposition to find out if they are the real deal or just another group looking for money. Firms can inject initial startup money and dev ICO can then present beta tech and start funding for huge stacks of currency from individual investors. I think going the ico route shows the attitude of get rich quick by luring investors with promise and not having actual tech to show for it
Topic: Why does every new tech require an ICO? Is it just the funding? - page 2. (Read 1313 times)
Exactly, one of the main reasons is to make a quick buck. That may sound sceptical but being around here for a while I have seen this change from honest devs some which would give out coins for free, they would work on their project freely and without the urgency to put a roadmap in place etc.to now almost every project requires an ICO.
If a project is worth something then the dev/s would be investing themselves into it, there are some legitimate ones but nine times out of ten ICO coins are are created for the dev to pocket.
If a project is worth something then the dev/s would be investing themselves into it, there are some legitimate ones but nine times out of ten ICO coins are are created for the dev to pocket.
It's easy money. Even if you don't intend to scam people, you can still set some lofty goals, collect money and if you don't achieve them, shrug shoulders and move on.
Sure, people will be mad at you, but it is within the realm of plausible deniability: you tried your best, but, sadly, your goals were set too high/the dev left/the funds were not sufficient/and so on.
Plus, it solves the coin distribution question. Projects, that do not have a mining phase need to find a fair way to distribute their tokens.
But to that regard; I recently thought about the idea of "Proof of Donation", where a project lead may ask people to donate funds not to them, but to an organisations (like greenpeace, doctors without borders or whatever) and give them tokens in return.
Sure, people will be mad at you, but it is within the realm of plausible deniability: you tried your best, but, sadly, your goals were set too high/the dev left/the funds were not sufficient/and so on.
Plus, it solves the coin distribution question. Projects, that do not have a mining phase need to find a fair way to distribute their tokens.
But to that regard; I recently thought about the idea of "Proof of Donation", where a project lead may ask people to donate funds not to them, but to an organisations (like greenpeace, doctors without borders or whatever) and give them tokens in return.
It seems that there is about 1 new ICO (mainly ERC20's on Ethereum) every week. How is it possible that each of these tech's needs its own coin and blockchain? Why don't they just develop on Ethereum?
Is it solely to get the venture capital?
Is it solely to get the venture capital?
Because it's an easy way to scam people; a couple of nice graphs and some promises and that seems to be enough for some people to send money to an anon dude without any guarantees...
If a coin is great, the dev should invest in it himself or gather the funds/backers outside of the coin's supply imo.
It seems that there is about 1 new ICO (mainly ERC20's on Ethereum) every week. How is it possible that each of these tech's needs its own coin and blockchain? Why don't they just develop on Ethereum?
Is it solely to get the venture capital?
Is it solely to get the venture capital?
Jump to: