Quote from: holydarkness on September 09, 2017, 09:34:24 AM

Quote from: shitcoinspector on September 09, 2017, 04:36:41 AM

Is there a risk of the government saying it's illegal and trying to arrest the developers? That would suck, would be next level oppression.

edit: And also future decentralized ico's will they have to be done anonymously in the future to avoid persecution?

Isn't the country that illegalize ico China? It means other countries like russia or U.S. will still devop ico project without any worries as the law didn't applied to them. Besides, KMD had long since passing their ICO, so it's not even a concern here.

not just China: https://cointelegraph.com/news/protostarr-ico-shut-down-by-sec
also russia is making some noise about "nationalizing" crypto, ie. making anything but the staterun crypto illegal

Some have pointed out that ETH ICO are also decentralized, but the d in dICO means more than just decentralized. It is the difference between napster and torrents. napster was p2p but it had a single point of failure, which was attacked and shutdown.

Current ICO invariably have a single point of failure. And if your blockchain transactions are transparent, then no matter how decentralized everything else is, what does it matter?

Without JUMBLR level privacy, there can be no dICO.
To my knowledge no other ICO platform offers JUMBLR level privacy.

Another issue is that by decentralizing the ICO inventory, whales wont be able to gobble up all the ICO coins at once.

Another issue about proxy token ICO is that they are nice and convenient, but it is all centralized in one blockchain and expensive gas fees to pay, forever. Having your own blockchain is the most efficient. No need to store all the transactions from unrelated projects, no terabyte blockchains needed.

To anybody that thinks dICO has been done before, they are confusing napster with torrents