It's just fascinating to me to see the cryptocurrency world gradually rediscover how financial regulation came to exist in the first place.
The US's capital and commodities markets started out very wild west. Over time, they've become highly regulated. Not because of mean, bad government, but mainly because market participants wanted regulation to drive out bad actors and increase market trust. That high level of ambient trust means that many non-US companies will list on US capital markets. It's a sign they pass more rigorous standards than elsewhere.
As you point out, "ICO" is becoming synonymous with "keep away". I've already seen many cryptocurrency participants lament the decline in brand value. If it hasn't happened already, I'm sure some bright spark will try to put together some sort of "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" for ICO-like vehicles in hopes of salvaging some sort of investor trust.
Although I hope otherwise, I suspect it won't work. Between the rising interest of regulators and the ability of non-scammy businesses to raise funds via more traditional means, I expect the bad will continue to drive out the good. Ponzi himself never really repented; in his last interview before his death, he said, "Even if they never got anything for it, it was cheap at that price. Without malice aforethought, I had given them the best show that was ever staged in their territory since the landing of the Pilgrims! It was easily worth fifteen million bucks to watch me put the thing over."
I stopped at the 'C'. Even if you accept that bitcoin has some legitimate worth there is no justification for all the rediculous Coins that pop up constantly. Why do people buy them? Are they trying to collect them all like a young person's version of Franklin Mint?
«no justification for all the rediculous Coins that pop up constantly»
The market certainly agrees with you, this is why the top 5 coins account for the 75% of crypto market cap, valuing the combined value of the hundreds of others at less than 25%.
I've tossed money at a few smaller projects that solve a legitimate need. Projects like Nano, or Kyber, or Loopring. The difference, I think, is that I rarely get in on ICOs, I don't throw any money at it I can't lose, and I think of it less like an investment opportunity and more like an easy way to help tech startups I believe in without having to get directly involved.
I know this sounds like low-effort snark, but ... yes, I agree.
For whatever else might be wrong or gameable about the stock market, at least IPOs require you to connect your identity as an officer of the company, and take on an obligation to work for shareholders' benefit, so there is a "neck to strangle" if you flout your agreement and run off with the funds. ICOs have no similar mechanism, making them extremely lucrative for scam artists.
