Quote from: moseich on May 13, 2018, 08:56:53 AM

The reason for closing ICO is an interesting fact.
When we understand why the SEC or the Court closed this or that ICO, we can see the organizers.
The analysis of errors will be useful not only to the teams that prepare ICO, but also to investors.
Issuers of ICO can avoid risks, and investors lose money.
The legal approaches of the Courts, Secs and other supervisory authorities to the ICO from different countries, perfectly show where the state policy moves in relation to crypto-currencies.
Actual lawsuits and bans say much more than laws and regulations.
Very interesting, if colleagues will share facts from different countries.
I propose to spread the information in a compressed format. A few examples:

1. November 1, 2017, a few hours after the call of the representative Sec, Munchee returned all payments to investors and did not send more than one token to customers. At this point, the company attracted more than 15 million ICO. ICO was dedicated to the unification of cafes and restaurants.
In the restraining order of December 11, 2017. Section, as Munchee and released a utility token. And the maintenance tokens of the utility, with the advertising company, managers and bounty program participants used the terms of the shares - profit, income and growth of the value of tokens on the exchange.
Conclusion-watch your advertising company. It must match the signs of the tokens that you advertise.

2. In support of paragraph 1. December 1, 2017, Dmarket conducted ICO in the amount of 30 million. ICO dedicated to the site for unification of computer games. The team also conducted a test of Howey and presented her tokens as utilities. In the advertising company used only the terms bonus and discount. Sec does not touch them, they develop normally in America.
Conclusion-watch your advertising company. It must match the signs of the tokens that you advertise.

3. April 20, 2018 issued a statement about Centra Tech Inc. Moshonic ICO, which raised $ 32 million. The team announced contractual relations with VISA and Mastecard companies, which were not. Simply collars.
Conclusion - check at least the basic facts from the information in white paper.

And so on, I'm waiting for your examples.

SEC definitely reasons out that the they do regulations on ICO for security purposes to protect the investors from fraud cause some people have really have been scammed. It's also good for them to show some guidelines in making investments but not to totally control things.