Quote from: Mr.cryptos on September 08, 2017, 10:33:44 PM

The ICO ban by the Chinese government is just to protect their citizens for obvious reasons. I think with out the USA and China, there is still the rest of the world so definitely its not the end of ICO's.

You do not seem to understand the dilemma from the standpoint of an honest developer such as myself who wants to raise funding but not get in trouble with the law.

Those other countries that you refer to which have unclear regulation, are a huge risk. If I do an ICO and sell only to people in those countries, not only do I eliminate the countries where people have the most money to invest (e.g. UK, USA, China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Canada, and Hong Kong which all planning to stop ICOs), but worse than that, I can later some years from now be retroactively found to have violated common sense notions of securities and become culpable under the law.

So honest developers wont risk it. Instead youll have the scammers who seem to not care and have a criminal mindset who are offering the ICOs.

That is a dysfunctional outcome. And the regulators of the G20 are waking up and realizing it cant be allowed.

I wish there would be some globalized regulatory standard asap, but there will not be soon.

Thus honest people should not be touching ICOs. They shouldnt issue them, nor trade in them. Unless they have a criminal mindset and do not care about their future trouble with the law.

Additionally, as I have pointed out numerous times already, the ICO-issued tokens (even if legally issued) will be at best illegal to trade on non-regulated exchanges and via P2P spending (and at worst unregistered and illegal to trade). IOW, an ICO-issued token becomes encumbered with future regulation issues and is entirely unsuitable for a decentralized ledger cryptocurrency token.

Quote from: https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/08/04/thoughts-on-the-saft/

Startups who embark on the ICO journey are creating automated value transfer systems that operate across borders with no KYC. These systems, once turned on, cannot be turned off or controlled. But the startups will continue to be expected to maintain them.

This is not easy, technically or legally. For this reason, the SAFT is clearly not anything near a cure-all for the compliance issues an ICO startup will later face, whether in the field of securities regulation or otherwise.

An interview about SAFT explains some of the issues, but do realize I disagree that the SAFT is a valid solution.