The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has released further “clarification” of its position on ICO tokens, asking investors to “exercise due diligence.”
A circular published Thursday follows a similar announcement Aug. 1, in which the regulator signaled an attitude to tokens echoing what was put forward by the US Securities and Exchanges Commission.
“Consumers should make it a point to understand the product,” the latest update reads.
“Where sellers of digital tokens fail to highlight the risks, consumers should make the effort to find out more information about the underlying project, business or assets.”
MAS follows with a list of six “risks” especially pertinent to ICO tokens which consumers should take into account when deciding to invest.
These are “foreign and online operators,” “sellers without a proven track record,” “insufficient secondary market liquidity,” “highly speculative investments,” “investments promising high returns” and “money laundering and terrorist funding.”
In line with previous literature, MAS again resists warning about any blanket restrictions on the horizon for tokens, with a case-by-case basis in use to determine whether a specific token constitutes a security.
“The CAD (Commercial Affairs Department) and the MAS advise consumers to be mindful of potential risks of digital token and virtual currency-related investment schemes,” it adds.
Addy Crezee, CEO at BlockShow by the Cointelegraph, organizing BlockShow Asia 2017 powered by Cointelegraph in Singapore on November 29-30, comments:
“As experts in the community suggest, now there will be more and more such warning alerts from regulators, letting players know that very soon the regulation will come. Unfortunately, fortunately, this will be shown with time, only regulators are able to bring order and safety at a given time into the industry and I would advise everyone to hear these signals and give time to prepare for the ICO in an axial way.”
The tone regarding the SEC statements meanwhile is diverging among industry participants, with one source this week voicing dismay as to why others “were not as concerned” about the comments’ potential meaning. 