Quote from: Gerobit on November 01, 2017, 05:38:33 PM

Hi

. I propose to develop a standard (list of rules) that guarantees absolute protection of investor's funds.

BPI, Blood Pact ICO standard - this name seems to me very suitable)

so, let's discuss..

Problem: ~ 95% of ICO is scam.

Giving push to the popularity of ICO, the use of smart Ethereum contracts greatly simplified the mechanism of conducting ICO and gave a false sense of control to the participant. Indeed, only global cataclysms will not allow the participant to receive paid "supercoins". At the same time, the creators are not connected by any obligations, which absolutely do not motivate them to spend the money received for the development of the project. My personal observation says that about 60% of the ICO are being launched solely with the aim of cutting down easy money, another 30% -35% are completely unclear projects that have nothing but a 5 page site and unknown persons on the team page. As a result, the cost of purchased tokens strives for zero, owners depending on the laziness half a year or one year compose excuses - and disappear forever.

The main idea is that the ICO project should use all possible tools to justify the trust of the participants. In the case of a digital project based on the blockchain technologies, the possibilities are quite broad.

Escrow services are services that should act as a financial guarantor between participants and the project and give out money in portions. Proceeding from the minuses, this is not technologically, the services are new and they themselves require verification, it is an extra mediator with a commission, there is not enough flexibility. This method is discarded as non-technological.

The following principles are proposed:

1. Access to collected funds is possible only with the permission of the participants. That means, the team creates an application for the withdrawal of part of the amount for the stated purposes, the support of a specified number of participants is necessary for the transaction. (Implementation of escrow without intermediaries). Either from the opposite, the team creates an application for withdrawal, which will be executed in 5 days if 51% of the participants do not block it.

2. The team award is established by the community.

3. The team must identify their wallets in the newly created crypt (you can see how much your own money is invested, how much the creators believe in the project and whether they are going to run away from the sinking ship like rats.

4. Ability to return invested funds in the voting of 61% of participants.

I think the introduction of such principles will radically change the picture on the ICO market. If the project declares support of the Blood Pact ICO principles - it can be trusted, it is not worthwhile to look at others.

The price of the token from the usual ICO in the first stage depends only on the participants' confidence in the team, they can already forget about the money, they have no control over them, therefore, to say that the cost of the new token is supported by 1000 of collected broadcasts is incorrect.

In the case of Blood Pact ICO, the credibility of the team is good, of course, but the new tokens are really supported by a kind of "gold and currency reserve" - which, here it lies and over which investors have control. This radically changes the picture, the token receives real security.

the idea is that if the project team says - we use the BPI standard, then it's 100% reliable guys

maybe I missed something, if you think that the above principles do not give absolute protection to the investor - tell me how they can be circumvented and offer your additions

That's sound great! I completely support these ideas. These rules help investors control the devs. But how can apply these standards for ICOs? Who will do that?