Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized • Hacker News Board

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#121

Post by _j5l3 » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57

pembrook wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They just require "adults in the room." You mean like regulators and trusted intermediaries? Due diligence conducted by independent third parties? Like the real financial system has always had? So basically, we went through this whole ICO bubble to realize that things are the way they are for a reason.

> we went through this whole ICO bubble to realize that things are the way they are for a reason That may be overly reductive. My views on several rules changed as a result of observing the ICO phenomenon. For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! On the other hand, I think Regulation D could be massively simplified--from a required paperwork perspe…

Finally, we've discovered the true value of blockchain: Making people learn about fiduciary policy.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#122

Post by dmix » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

hudon wrote: post #23

You can see the state (volume, # daily users) of some of these promised "dapps" here: https://dappradar.com . It is indeed a barren wasteland. And when a new popular ICO comes along, the Ethereum network struggles and fees skyrocket. It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning: you could at least send messages and files across the netw…

This is literally a (tongue-in-cheek) pyramid scheme right? https://dappradar.com/app/171/powh-3d

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#123

Post by dougmccune » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

fairpixels wrote: post #82

That’s actually a conservative number. We [1] design UI/UX for all sorts of startups and the last year a good chunk of that was for ICO related projects. The vast majority dies somewhere during the sales period. [1] http://fairpixels.pro

So you actively seek out and work for companies that you believe are most likely pure scams? I don't mean this to come off as too judgmental, I'm honestly curious what your take on it is. Does the fact that you know your client is trying to rip people off factor into the decision to take on a project?

Or do you think the ICOs you design for are all well-intentioned and just so happen to all fail after/during their token sales?

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#124

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #100

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The transfer itself does not require trust Cash transfers and barters are trustless. Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies ( i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the most reliable part of the trust chain while exacerbating every other element of transaction risk.

> Cash transfers and barters are trustless Yes, but they require physical presence. > Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies (i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Irrevocability is not the same as trustlessness. Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise. > Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the mos…

> Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise

The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. Blockchains are a neat technology which should have never been marketed as a currency.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#125

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:28 PM UTC

hudon wrote: post #116

darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

1. What if we put "beginning" as in "before it was even called the Internet"? Indeed, ARPANET, which came online in 1969, saw fast growth in the United States in the 70s. Nodes came online to use it , not to make a quick buck. The government subsidized it because its potential use was obvious. Email started being used in 1972, FTP in 1973. To compare these world-changing technologies that were invented and used merel…

> Nodes came online to use it, not to make a quick buck

Thereby allowing use and feature development to proceed hand in hand. That synergy between makers and users is wholly non-existent in the crytocurrency space, which is primarily focussed on flipping a quick buck.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#126

Post by na85 » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:28 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #98

hudon wrote: post #23

You can see the state (volume, # daily users) of some of these promised "dapps" here: https://dappradar.com . It is indeed a barren wasteland. And when a new popular ICO comes along, the Ethereum network struggles and fees skyrocket. It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning: you could at least send messages and files across the netw…

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

>blockchains are useful now

Honest question: for what?

I've yet to hear a use case where blockchains are actually solving a problem, other than "buy things on the black market".

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#127

Post by ENGNR » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

lucasmullens wrote: post #118

blocked_again wrote: post #109

Like it or not blockhains are here to stay. Nobody is going to run behind VCs looking for elite money in 20 years from now. Isnt it obvious? Blockhains are going to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy elite few to the masses. More and more wealth is being generated from nowhere. Just because there are some spammy ICOs now doesn't mean it's the end of the blockhain and ICO. This is going to be another rare instan…

How would blockchains redistribute wealth away from the wealthy?

Securities deregulation. On the one hand, investors deserve protections. On the other, has the regulation gone too far by design, locking out the middle class it used to serve so well. Why do companies wait until most of the value is already realized before they IPO these days

Crypto could be Uber for securities, ignoring the regulator and using technology to self regulate, or by operating out of countries with lighter regulation

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#128

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #112

darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

yep. the internet was around for years before it was viable. So were computers.

> the internet was around for years before it was viable. So were computers.

The first electronic computers were purpose built to crack wartime codes [1][2]. The problem preceded the technology.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#129

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:31 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #103

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a pre-order for a product that may or may not ever exist I'm not even sure it's this. Pre-orders come with rules. ICOs do not. (Or more accurately, they make them difficult and unrewarding to enforce.)

Do they? I was under the impression that I could sell as many pre-orders for my anti-gravity skateboards, and my marks would have very little recourse, as long as I had the right disclaimers, and I don't sell to Europeans. [1] [2] [3] [4] [1] Product might not perform as advertised. [2] Product might not be delivered in the promised timeline. [3] Product might not be completed at all, due to unfortunate circumstances…

> I could sell as many pre-orders for my anti-gravity skateboards, and my marks would have very little recourse

If you had zero intent of making anti-gravity skateboards, they would have criminal recourse. If you had every intent but were marketing the impossible, they may have civil recourse. Not everything can be disclaimed away. Pre-orders, moreover, are regulated in many states.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Don't scam people.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#130

Post by chrisco255 » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 9:31 PM UTC

hudon wrote: post #66

chrisco255 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DAPP Radar is not the authoritative source for all Ethereum applications. There are many like Augur, Golem, MakerDAI, etc that aren't even included on that list. Depends on when "early days of internet" is defined? The internet could be seen as an evolution of ARPAnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET which was defined in the mid-1960s and took years to deploy and probably decades to evolve to the usefulness you…

As per your citation, ARPAnet came online in 1969 and emails were being exchanged by 1972, barely 3 years later. Blockchains have been around for 10 years now and every year they cause bigger problems without actually solving any.

Emails were being exchanged, to what extent? Could you email anyone in the world in 1972? No, like two people could e-mail each other. It's not like you had Gmail or even AOL in 1972.

Yes, email was used for business purposes in the 80s...but it took a long, long time for the internet to reach mass adoption and maturity. Decades.

Meanwhile, Ethereum was launched in 2015. Unless you think the tech has hit an evolutionary dead end...that it's not going to go any further, I think it's incredibly ignorant to criticize this nascent technology based on where it's at today.