Quote from: buwaytress on October 07, 2018, 09:13:25 AM

I'm always reluctant to view these types of "draconian" measures as "bad" for crypto, especially when it comes to ICOs. In the first place, the ICO proliferation wasn't exactly good for the market, just take a look at >2k tokens floating about, inflating capitalization without offering any value other than their speculatory activities. Innovation hasn't exactly been the hallmark of ICOs; the significant development and deployment of tech and applications are still firmly in the arena of open source and non-ICO related projects.

Conducive to ICO doesn't automatically mean conducive for blockchain, and vice versa. Like veleten, I actually think these rules are good for weeding out the noise. Those that are serious about developing something useful will comply, or anyway have no such commercial interests that would qualify them for all these tax obligations. Those who've been focused on profit and running ICOs with impunity will be stopped in their tracks.

If anything, Thailand has killed the scam and vapourware economy. Good riddance.

I strongly disagree. This kind of regulation leaves ICO crowdfunding as an option that is only viable for multi-million businesses, in addition to removing the decentralized features.

With this kind of regulation, the benefits of doing an ICO is gone, and the company might just as well do an IPO.

ICOshock

Posts

Merits