I've recently stumbled upon a post here, which made me to think about the real problem with ICOs nowadays. The post is about the #savedroid scam (or an awful marketing campaign).
This is the post:
https://steemit.com/ico/@analyst101/savedroid-is-a-scam-and-yet-it-had-4-5-rating-on-ico-bench-why-that-should-bother-all-of-us
Here you can read a piece by Robby Schwertner, why it is most likely a marketing campaign: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6392467214418665473
There is also a meaningful post at the bitcointalk with the analysis, why the original @analyst101 post in question is indecent, why it is most likely a black marketing or an attempt to get attention or whatever else:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3344639.msg35045476#msg35045476
What is interesting to me, is the actual problem on where to go with ICOs, how to make htem better, safer and more transparent. What would be your take on this?
I suppose, that to better utilize the crowdfunding nature of ICOs, we have to use better the crowdsourcing of information about ICOs and the crowd wisdom approach to analyse such information. That means:
- Getting more experts on review platforms. That can be done with some bounties from the review, for the data provision, for the analytics etc. Monetization is the key for getting and retaining experts on the platform.
- Ranking and profiling such experts based on their actual performance and certification.
- Sharing all the background information about ICOs (even going down to asking friends of friends of friends to provide some valuable data on the team memebers)
- Crowdsourcing of due diligence (ask some local to check out the office)
- Creating an open standard for ICO reviewing. However, it doesn't mean that every expert has to conduct the full review. It means, that an expert can take any part of the review and contribute to it according to his scope of expertise.
- May be, even generating some decentralized funds on a proportional basis from the ICOs proceeding to cover up scams, conducted against the investors on the platform. At least, that looks doable and a very positive thing to build up a trust.
What would you add to the list? It is work in progress, but I'm genuinely interested in everyone's input. I actually have in mind some very interesting and resourceful guys to approach with these ideas and make them happen.