Although the price may dip after a token is released, you have to also factor in how difficult it might be to obtain these coins, because they don't get listed on exchanges immediately. Some ICOs especially have very cheap prices at the very beginning of an ICO, so purchasing at the beginning is way cheaper than buying on the exchange.

Although there are not articles, it doesn't surprise me at all that this is the case. People who have no idea how trustable an ICO is upload their passports without hesitating, which makes simply no sense to me. I'd be really careful about any personal information online.

Real interesting to see a tech savvy guy like Steve Wozniak getting scammed, with such an easy method as well. But it shouldn't be a huge problem for him, the man is worth $100 million dollars after all. Just goes on to show you that everyone has to remain vigilant to avoid getting scammed.

Well it's an easy way to get funding for whatever you have in mind. For every ICO that has turned out to be a scam, there have been countless others which were promising and have managed to keep their promises. That some turn out to be scams, is not a problem on the ICOs' end, but it's rather due to people who think of crypto = free magic internet money, and just invest their money without caring about what they are investing in.

I don't have anything to base my comment on (besides, who does, really) but I feel like LTC will make a jump this year, and I was always valuing it more than BCH. Since the market is on a bearish trend right now, I doubt anyone knows what's going on and can make a reliable prediction.

Besides interest, no one really knows whether the ICOs even have the manpower or the technical infrastructure or capabilities to keep your data safe. Partnering with such companies would also mean that the ICO values its customers' privacy as well, which would be a pretty good indicator in terms of how much an ICO is to be trusted.

There are basically two camps: One camp thinks that ripple is a complete scam and they wouldn't touch the coin with a ten foot pole, the other camp wants to trade ripple although they don't trust it, because the coin provides some good profit opportunities every now and then. I'm in the second camp, and if you think that ripple will take off in the future once again, now might be a good time to buy, because if the market goes green again, we won't be seeing this price level for a long time.

Why would they need rewards in crypto is what I'm asking. Gold medal in any olympic category = $$$ in sponsorships. They would not even bother with the coins they would receive, since it could never surpass the money they would make off of rewards.

Giving olympian gold winners altcoins is meaningless, don't you think? These are gold medal winners, who are going to get rewarded by their governments and probably make a lot of money off of sponsorships as well. I'm fairly sure they won't be interested in any "airdrops".

I have never seen media talking about releases, updates and the like, when the market was booming. They were only covering bitcoin with sensationalist titles like "IS BITCOIN MONEY?" and no substance. It is useless to expect that media will produce high quality news about bitcoin. If merits were a real thing in the real world, media outlets would get absolutely no merit at all lol.

You can't earn merits by asking for them anyway. There are also no special threads where you post high quality content and people give you merit for posting there. If you want to earn merit by posting high quality content, just start doing so, you don't need anything else. Hopefully your contributions will be recognized and people will start handing out merit to you.

Well it's tax. It's not like the government is extorting money or something. The way I see it, this is good since taxing means there is a regulation behind it, and regulation means that cryptocurrencies are legal, which is the first step towards mass acceptance, something which we need very much.

Unless segwit adoption takes off, or lightning network takes too long to get implemented, once bitcoin rises in popularity once again, we're going to see the high transaction fees again. So I think the main reason behind the high fees has not been addressed yet, we probably will experience the same problems eventually.

This has been my experience as well. The way I see it, people are still very frustrated with the merit system and whenever they see their opinions voiced by someone else, they feel like they want to reward that person by meriting them because that person was able to express what they themselves couldn't express for whatever reason.

More control is good, especially in terms of exchanges. There were a lot of fishy "hacks" (wink wink nudge nudge) and "bankruptcies" in the past that I can't believe that there still are unlicensed exchanges out there. Instead of figuring out how to tax cryptocurrencies, I think the most important and urgent task of any government is to come up with regulations for exchanges, and they have to shut down any exchange that doesn't comply.

Transaction fees are generally very high so people would probably not be willing to use them. Besides, how would they report cryptocurrencies in their annual reports? It definitely would be a hassle, and I think unless cryptocurrencies become really widespread, companies will not feel like the effort to incorporate cryptocurrencies into their systems will not pay off.

Not sure about PDX and Victura, but doesn't the article say that Cherubim failed to submit annual and quarterly reports? In that case I would say that some sort of sanctions are definitely justified, no?

But in general I agree with your main points in that SEC appears to be too paranoid whenever they hear the word "cryptocurrency", no matter whether the regulations were followed or not.

I think the modification we need to the system is a way to completely filter out filler, non-productive posts. Upvotes are a good idea, but if you give that right to everyone, then account farmers will thrive once again.

So in order to combat this, downvotes can be introduced as well, along with upvotes. How would that work? You give the right to upvote and downvote to everyone. If a post gets, say, 20 downvotes, then that post gets deleted (because 20 downvotes would mean that the community agrees that it's a spam comment) and any merit that that user got on that comment thanks to his alt accounts get deleted as well.

So you give the right to merit to everyone, but you also give everyone to mark spam comments with downvotes as well. If a post gets too many downvotes, it gets deleted, along with the merits off of that post, of course. How about that?

How surprising:) I thought banks were saying that bitcoin was a scam and that it would crash and burn? Well what do you know.

If anything, this should show everyone how legitimate cryptocurrencies are. The established players are speaking against it, but at the same time they are getting ready to go in once the wind starts blowing in the other direction. How hypocritical of them, but it shouldn't be surprising really.

I think it depends more on how willing you are to take risks as a person, and not on how tech-savvy you are, when it comes to investing in bitcoin. Even if a person is not high on computers or the internet, when you explain to them the concept of cryptocurrency, they may be ready to invest. If a person doesn't like taking risks, no matter how tech-savvy they are, they will find reasons not to invest, most of them being along the lines of, "this looks like a scam".