Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 433 posts

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

#171

Post by anyfoo »

aboodman wrote: post #106
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…

> They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. Exactly. The early internet was full of promises of taking over retail. None of that worked, at first. Instead the internet was useful for messaging and putting up personal websites. All the responsible people at the time kept whining -- how is it going to make money?? Well, people kept working on it. For…

The Internet was useful for a lot more things than messaging (without belittling its immense importance) and putting up "personal" websites. It allowed for efficient file transfer and retrieval of information across all distances, facilitating all sort of research and collaboration in the process. It nearly instantly provided a lever to all science and technology.

Online shopping was not a "promise" on which the Internet and its predecessors were built, it was merely one of an uncountable amount of use cases on top of an already useful thing.

In the early days, there were always way more users that wanted to get on the Internet at more times than possible. The scale of the Internet was never capped by interest or potential applications, but by available funding and technology. To me, that sounds like the opposite of cryptocurrency.

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

#172

Post by craigc »

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…

> For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary!

This is one area I keep going back and forth on in my head. On one hand, obviously scams are bad, and the fact that people are throwing their life savings into some of these companies is awful.

That said, I am not sure it should be up to Governments to decide who can and can’t invest in early stage startups and how people should be allowed to spend their money. Much of the reason that crowdfunding (Kickstarter, Indiegogo, ICOs) has become popular is because of the lower barrier to entry for contributing to projects/startups. There are a number of companies I would love to invest in, but can’t because I am not a millionaire. I do not really find that fair.

Creating an open market around funding will teach people a lot of hard lessons about money. VCs know that 90% of startups are going to fail. I don’t think it is that crazy to believe that regular people can learn that as well. All it takes is one really bad investment to learn the lesson.

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

#173

Post by opencl »

darawk wrote: post #158
hudon wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People use cryptocurrency too. For value transfer, and to a more limited extent, for dapps like Augur. Soooo, buying drugs and illegal gambling? Sure, I'll give you that one. My argument rephrased: "Because cryptocurrency investors have repeatedly made claims that don't pan out, we can be reasonably skeptical and concerned about their energy consumption until they actually fix it or at the very least provide peer-r…

> Soooo, buying drugs and illegal gambling? Sure, I'll give you that one. Yes, although also remittance payments, and some usage in places with unstable currencies like Venezuela. Hard to gauge how much, though. > My argument rephrased: "Because cryptocurrency investors have repeatedly made claims that don't pan out, we can be reasonably skeptical and concerned about their energy consumption until they actually fix i…

Bitcoin is a solution to unstable currencies in the same way that gasoline is a fire extinguisher. People in Venezuela that want to actually eat are using USD.

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

#174

Post by wslh »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #73
wslh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to agree with me I am disagreeing and saying that it is VC/PE vs. Presales and ICO the whole story. > but if you really feel geography doesn't matter then please share your argument for this, I'm ready to learn!! It is not an argument, it is a fact. For example, you will see a really important investment to an Argentina based company (outside top geographies) in a few month…

> It is not an argument, it is a fact All capital flows have a home-country bias. Even securities which are easily bought and sold internationally [1]. Proximity to investors matters even within countries. A start-up raising VC or person promoting an ICO in Silicon Valley will raise more money faster than someone in Montana. They, in turn, will outperform someone in Zanzibar. Doesn't mean it can't be done from Montan…

Beyond the obvious geography bias (in general, business networks are strongly connected within specific geographies) the crypto investments are notorious by crossing boundaries in a way not seen by the usual VCs. I mentioned one example before and I have more that will be disclosed to the public in the coming months.

Again, I am not negating the bias towards proximity but seeing there is a new distinguishable phenomenon happening. This phenomenon favors global entrepreneurs in a new way.

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

#175

Post by darawk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #161
darawk wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally speaking, if my things get stolen, "it was stolen by X and not Y" is not a value-adding rebuttal. It is actually counterproductive if X (e.g., a cryptocurrency thief) is harder to gain recourse against than Y (e.g. an FDIC-insured bank). That's certainly true. But the issues around people losing their coins and having their keys stolen can be solved by better UX and application security. Essentially crypt…

> If you want to make the case that they are in fact central End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.)

> End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.)

Totally agree. In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose.

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

#177

Post by darawk »

mehrdadn wrote: post #167
darawk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't you need to trust nodes that they'll pass down and/or include process your transaction, and that they'll do so in a timely fashion? Yes, but their incentives are structured to align with yours in that scenario. You are trusting them to act in their own interest.

Isn't that the same with credit cards, wires, etc.? They make money from your transactions too.

That's true, but the degrees of freedom are different. The node processing your transaction cannot steal your money in crypto. It can only choose not to broadcast your transaction, and they are also in perfect competition with all the other nodes. Which means that if one node chooses not to process your tx, another will soon.

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

#178

Post by themagician »

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…

Right now the redistribution seems to be going from average people to snake oil salesmen.

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

#179

Post by sonnyblarney »

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, just like the internet was"

Where is blockchain 'useful' for any common practice?

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

#180

Post by JumpCrisscross »

darawk wrote: post #175
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to make the case that they are in fact central End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.)

> End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.) Totally agree. In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But…

> In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose

The problem with this vision is those people using centralized services see no benefit. They are better off sticking with the status quo.

Cryptocurrencies make sense for people who wish, for philosophically reasons, to control their own money. That vision doesn't require a "crypto dominated world." It does, however, require shrinking the vision from "re-imaginging the financial system" to "solving a need for a small group of devoted people." That's okay, and if that's how crypto were marketed it would (a) be more honest but (b) come with a lower value.

Post reply on HN