Most ICOs are playing off these things, trying to avoid the SEC, and in turn, hurting investors by giving them a bad deal. Tezos, for example, calls their inves

Most ICOs are playing off these things, trying to avoid the SEC, and in turn, hurting investors by giving them a bad deal. Tezos, for example, calls their investors donors, giving them donations. This is disgusting. We (see profile) are doing the right thing by issuing an unregulated security. With privacy tech this will not be a problem for investors, and we absorb the risk along with the other risky things we do. Our contingency system will allow the platform to continue even if we have an accident or fail our opsec and are outed. I do not quite get this article saying that ICOs are riskier when they issue shares or equivalents. Investors are at a better position if they own part of the underlying company instead of a token that could simply be replaced. Nothing stops Filecoin or the other storage companies, for instance, from pegging the value of the token very low, or outright issuing new tokens or just accepting ETH/BTC/XMR like they should.