Yes ... actually. But why negatively ... rather call that positively an INVESTOR PROTECTION.

I don't know why you started with cryptos ... but considerable parts of this scene are now worse than the banksters against whom this revolutionary new technology set off to protect us.  
And crypto ICO/IPO/ITOs seem to have become the new scam scheme to make a tiny group very rich, by making many many people poorer.

What I am talking about is not a worsening ("manipulation") but an improvement ("protection") of the situation, and it only needs to happen in the first ~3 weeks after an ICO/IPO/ITO. And as you can see in his answer and in my former posts about this, the people behind this coin were actually considering it. Good. I would like an update on that now.   But think for yourself - perhaps I am wrong with this suggestion, then find the flaw please.  So: What are the ingredients of my thinking?

• ICO/IPO/ITO s have become a terrible trap in the past months ...
• ... often because usually one (only very small) group panics, and immediately sells, at a loss.
• Understandable, because there is a lot of scam in cryptos, and you never know for sure until after the big-dump-without-recovery. Then it's bagholding for life, or selling at a huge loss.
• To buy at 25000, and the next day sell at 18000 might look irrational, at first...
• ...but look at it now: Those few who immediately dumped their BLOCK at a loss, were the only rational people. Everyone who hodled was not. Sell at 18000 buy back at 12000 - isn't that rationality?
• That immediate minidump to far below ICO prices ... happened before a good buy support had started to build up. Clearly, in the first days how can there be buy support? - Most of the people interested in the coin have already invested - into the ICO.

It's all so easy to understand. And thus, there is a supereasy way out ... to protect the value, support, trust, good atmosphere among the vast majority of the investors ... and it takes only a tiny little minuscule abstinence from greed. Sharing is caring.

Look at the example of BLOCK: To protect 98.3%, you now only need 1.7%. Only 1.7% of the IPO money will get the price back up.

The makers of this software here were trusted with 364 BTC. It would have been an easy act of pure cold-blooded cleverness (or call it team spirit, or even altruism, or business manners), to re-invest 3% of that, directly after the IPO, into stabilizing the price.  (And a lot of the fudding would not have happened, by the way).

And all this is rational for the ICO organizers, because with a rising price they can then later sell what they bought ...

... during the INVESTOR PROTECTION WEEKS  - every I(CPT)O should have IPW^(tm)
(... I invent that term now ... could that actually become a paid service?, contact me for details! ... I just locked it into the blockchain, to prove it was me :-) )

Anyways ... is all of the above ... just wrong? Then please help me to understand the flaw in my thinking.

Last but not least, there is another spin on this ... not my words:  "neither is it a bad idea for the Foundation to be invested in BLOCK"
 
Enjoy your weekend!