3 ms·
Your default assumption should be that ICOs are fraud. This assumption should be strong enough that attaching a famous name to them should not change your posi
by nullc 6y ago
Your default assumption should be that ICOs are fraud.
This assumption should be strong enough that attaching a famous name to them should not change your position much.
The restriction free rewards for issuing an ICO are nearly unfathomable. Millions to billion dollars of dumb money flowing it based only on tens of thousands of dollars in marketing. Some people find it easy to rationalize.
In a situation like this involved parties might feel it's justified because the money they're defrauding out of the public could be applied to a virtuous cause.
- lordlimecat 6y ago> Your default assumption should be that ICOs are fraud. Are they ever not fraud or a scheme to enrich the architects of the scheme?
- nullc 6y agoMaybe, which is why I said 'default'. But the lack of good practices or protections means even that the most earnestly run one is extremely risky and likely to ultimately yield fraud like returns to their investors due to honest errors. Moreover, there is a huge lemon market problem: If if an issuer is in the the (say) 1% of honest efforts they are in constant competition with fraud, under pressure to make misleading fraud-like promises and offer fraud-like returns-- prudent parties realize this and exit knowing that they have better options. So investors are left with the honest participants that were too clueless to realize this or not attractive enough to have other alternatives.
- wmf 6y agoSia and Avalanche are some of the least sketchy. Note that startups also enrich their founders, although usually not in massive upfront cash payments.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago> Are they ever not fraud or a scheme to enrich the architects of the scheme? The Ethereum ICO is a good, rare example of non-fraudulent ICO.