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 won’t risk it. Instead you’ll 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 can’t 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 shouldn’t 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.


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