Quote from: SpacemanOne on October 24, 2016, 11:03:40 PM

Quote from: Inchain.io on October 24, 2016, 10:00:15 PM

Quote from: SpacemanOne on October 24, 2016, 08:41:46 PM

Quote

1) You compare a fund with an insurance platform pointing out only advantages of the fund and disadvantages of the platform. For example, I assume that the fund managers will be trading at some cryptoexchanges, so why dont you add a risk that these exchanges may be compromised and the fund loses its money? Same story with the Ethereum network if the fund invests in ETH. I also would not say that there is no legal risk.

Not correct. The risks of compromised exchanges exist for the insurance platform too. Or you won't use any exchanges to purchase the crypto assets?
Or you mean the fund managers will store their funds at the exchanges? No, they won't. They will use the exchanges to buy and sell assets only, not to store them.
You also don't understand the Ethereum network risk. I mean your system is built on top of Ethereum and uses Ethereum smart contracts. If there are Ethereum network problems your system will have problems too. We all know about the hard forks.
http://forklog.net/ambisafe-urges-ethereum-to-revise-hardfork-conditions/
And yes, legal risks always exist for all legal structures.

We do understand the Ethereum network risks. The point I was trying to make is that every investor in ETH is quite sensitive to such risks as well.

I understand your point but insurance fund and investment fund may not have ETH in their portfolio (in theory) but your system is still built on top of Ethereum and has the above risks. So the risk of ETH price volatility and the risk of the platform functioning problems are absolutely different risks.
Moreover, the risks of ETH volatility are absolutely the same for all the funds with the same structure so they may be omitted in the comparison.

Agree. There is no alternatives yet.