Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Matthews Lab
Search
Search
Appearance
Log in
Personal tools
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Ico crapcoin checklist
(section)
Page
Discussion
British English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
= Trust matrices at a glance = '''Any token that isn’t created directly from a DAC by definition cannot guarantee that any utility will be created in relation to owning that token.''' What’s more confusing is that DACs absolutely don’t need an ICO for that to happen since tokens are created dynamically by recognising the contributions made towards achieving some common goal. Thus, all ICOs can be considered legally nonbinding, trusted agreements between an unbounded number of parties in exchange for receiving the promise of some entity to produce a future service. Again, that’s not to say that ICO tokens don’t have economic value but often that value comes at the expense of usability (and intentionally so.) {| class="wikitable" |- ! Parties ! Trusted ! Trustless |- | Bounded | '''Dumb contracts:''' Augur, Gnosis (unique distinction of being shitcoins that use dumb contracts) | '''Smart contracts:''' Storj (low trust), Golem (low trust), Gambling, Lotteries, Lightning Networks, Cross-chain contracts, ENS, etc |- | Unbounded | '''Crapcoins:''' BAT, Melon, mostly every ICO token ever… | '''DACs:''' Ethereum, ZCash, MimbleWimble, Bitcoin, DDoSCoin, BlockNet (or equivalent), Datachains, etc |} My conclusion is that most current ICOs aren’t compatible with an investors interests because there is no way to guarantee that they will receive anything from the sale; The tokens by themselves aren’t legally binding and they’re not attached to equity… besides, even if they were you would still have to trust that the company created the final product. I think in the ideal case there needs to be a legally binding agreement for ICO tokens where investors end up buying some benefit in a future DAC (therefore guaranteeing that the token will have '''utility''') - because only then will you know that you’re not just funding a new shitcoin scheme. Ethereum almost came close to accomplishing this but I don’t think I’ve seen any ICO sale that had a legally binding agreement to create software to back up the value of the tokens sold at ICO.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Matthews Lab may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Matthews Lab:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)