Actually I would beg to differ. People are generally unable to identify the worth of a project at the first glance. Many of my friends invest in ICO's but a very few actually do solid research. While classifying everything as securities is not the answer but regulations prevents profit mongers from hijacking the system.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
True, regulations are welcome.
agree, certain flags always come up in scams. a coin with horrendous premine is not safe, for example
that's their own fault then, I have looked at over 100 ICO's in the last year and a half and have only invested in two, Varitasium and Wax. I am not an expert and don't have a background in finance.
Sure, SOME regulation is needed but it should be in the form of punative measures for bad actors, not restricting everyone, that's like not letting anyone ever cross the street because a few people jaywalk.
I think they invest based on some recommendation from some trusted sources. It's perfectly normal to trust your advisers and invest into something that you do not understand yourself. And it's also normal to pick a random coin and invest a little instead of gambling the same amount of money in Las Vegas considering that chances of winning in ICOs are higher than in Las Vegas. Some people gamble more, some less, it all depends on individual taste of winning and risk tolerance.
The problem with over-regulation, bad regulation and lawsuits is similar to problem with antibiotic killing useful bacteria in human gut. With help of good advisers community will eventually find a way to differentiate bad ICOs from good ICOs. With regulation, advisory business will not thrive and public will be forced to rely on regulation more and more, which benefits criminals more and more.