Blog

Initial coin offering has generated much-heated debates since it started some years ago. There have been a bunch of fingers pointing to Initial Coin Offerings, what their real nature is, and how financial authorities should treat them. Bitcoin and Etherium are unarguably the foundation of Initial Coin Offerings, as we know today. One article puts the cost of 1 bitcoin which sells for over $7000 at the time of writing this article at just a few cents in 2009. Etherium seemed to have won the race at the time of its launch when it raised $18 million with 2.3 million of that coming in the first 12 hours of its sale. At the time of writing this, article, however, Block.one stands at the top with after raising about $4 billion in its ICO. This may be a good justification for the Heat and wildly varying attention Initial Coin Offerings are receiving. We would discuss the future of initial coin offering, but our focus would be more on utility tokens and their nature. This may be difficult to achieve without looking at the opinion of some experts on the subject of what constitutes the ideal and maybe trends in our discussion. Startups in the cryptocurrency space issue utility tokens or app tokens as a way of raising funds to carry out their project. The actual process of getting persons to buy these tokens and putting these tokens up for sale in the first place is an Initial Coin Offering. This process is quite similar to traditional kick starter and Indiegogo models, and also shares the same level of similarities with Initial Public Offerings, but it is important to understand the variations in all of these. For an Initial Public Offering or IPO companies sell assets and securities and the objective is to offer profitable investments in any case. We would look at this in details later. An ICO idea may be much like a Kickstarter project. The launcher who might either be a programmer or not and some other programmers and experts forming a team is saying we have this idea often written in a white paper and we believe it would work as we have stated here. What is left to the public is a decision based on what such a project has come up with whether there are good chances of success in which case they would offer to support the project or failure in which case it would be considered an empty scheme. Unlike Kickstarter models again, however, this support often comes with some sort of benefits like financial returns in most cases. Imagine buying bitcoins at 25 cents in 2009 and then selling the same coin for $21,000 in 2017. This would serve as a good example. Much has since changed since the time of bitcoin and etherium. The advent of smart contracts running on a public blockchain such as the etherium blockchain allows the creation of tokens complying with the ERC 20 standards. With this, innovators can launch Initial Coin Offerings also called crowd sales and distribute utility tokens backed by the native ether. Successful projects in this category include Bancor, Tron, EOS, The Status Network and OmiseGO. Issuers create utility tokens for the purpose they serve. Developers of the SNT tokens, for example, made these tokens for investment in digital assets, purchase of insurance or shares and etcetera while OmiseGO’s OMG tokens could serve as an easy way out of international transaction problems. The profit in these tokens only comes from appreciation in prices over time. The reason why people invest in utility tokens is quite simple. They do because they anticipate that, as was the case with bitcoin and etherium, making many people millionaires all of a sudden, their currently worthless tokens would one day appreciate and yield a significant profit. Another reason although closely tied to this is the prospect of the project. We may also add the credibility and reputation of the team because reports have linked Block.one’s monumental success to the involvement of big names in crypto like Daniel Larimer. Everything does go back to the possibility of gains. This would bring us to security tokens. With the success of several Initial Coin Offering, traditional companies have started to consider the blockchain as the most promising way to raise capital. This would mean that instead of Initial Public Offerings, a similar system of selling assets and securities, which indicate ownership of some part of a physical business or property, would take precedence. Some of these projects include tZERO and Nexo. The legal nature of utility tokens becomes clear when compared with security tokens, although, the Howey Test in the United States has been a common resource in legal decisions. The test defines securities to include monetary investment, common enterprise, profits, and the involvement of a third party. Utility tokens give owners access to a service by their nature this sets them apart from security tokens since they can as well become worthless from fall in prices, making them unsuitable as a financial security. There is, in fact, more than enough reason to support the fact that companies and blockchain startups resort to Initial Coin Offering to get funds for their project. Like the original bitcoin idea, innovations in the blockchain are beneficial to everyone. They can indeed be a public good as some of the projects are proving already. Etherium, for example, was mined to help refugees in 2017 and a similar project was launched in 2018. Blockchain projects are often time-consuming and require hours of human effort to develop and maintain. There have been recent improvements in the etherium network like sharding, which improves scalability by increasing the number of possible transactions. Banks, Financial Institutions, and traditional investors would have been standing out options, but funds from these sources would not come without a sacrifice of some part of the developer's stake in the project. Therefore, an ICO is really the most convenient way to bring a conceived blockchain idea to life. All said the future of initial coin offering may still come back to revolve around the discussions already started by key actors in the crypto space like Vitlik Buterin. The situation of raising funds should grow to be such that there is the least chance of a loss. Suggestions have compared all mechanisms used in previous token sales. The ideal Initial Coin Offering and sale of utility tokens should meet requirements of efficiency. It should have a valuation. It also has to prevent the issuers of the token from taking a greedy stand by holding the majority of the tokens creating a central authority system. There should be good chances of success from investment in any launched project, and the amount the ICO would raise has to be set. Setting a floor and a ceiling price would at least minimize the case of a pump and dump scheme already experienced in some ICO’s. Extending the sale time to even years while maintaining a reverse dutch auction mechanism as described in Buterin’s articlemay well be a way out. The potential of ICO’s is boundless especially with the advent of security tokens. Come to think about Amazon and Microsoft stocks listed on a decentralized network. That is actually, where this train is headed.

Read More

This article would take us through a lot of economics' but we would strike the balance by equally looking at bitcoin' the subject of our discussion. The evolution of money and the story of value dates back to thousands of years ago. As soon as people had more than they needed and needed what they do not have at the same time' the barter economy was born. One point that is important to note is that however simplistic it might seem' the barter economy although fraught with its own shortcomings also came with some advantages. The coincidence of want was a problem because Alice for example needed to have what Bob wants' need what Bob has' and at the same time be willing to exchange such an item for a certain amount Bob would be willing to accept. The freedom these parties had' however' was that unlike it is today' there was no central authority present to decide what quantity of what had to be exchanged for a different quantity of another. This was considered a problem and the development of a single and generally agreed criteria resulted in the birth of fiat currency. At first' precious metals were the sole means of exchange. The value of these metals was based on perception. Gold' for example' may well have no value outside of the fact that it looks good and every other person thinks about it in the same way. The growth of empires also affected the evolution of money and the way we think about money today. These had a lot of implications because all types of money that have evolved needed to possess a quality—scarcity. Hence' gold as a currency started to lose sway as the metal was fraught with several shortcomings. If gold is accepted as a medium of exchange and a store of value' the need for constant supply would make it all the more complicated since the metal serves multiple purposes to humankind. The inefficiency of precious metals as currencies which is a direct result of its shortcomings as a medium of exchange led to a swift and desirable shift to paper money. First' producing gold has a marginal cost and following this is the fact that the value of gold has to be ascertained in another way except of course we would recourse to a barter sense where the parties in a transaction have to determine everything all over again. The third is the limited supply of gold meant that the economy would one day outgrow the medium of exchange which poses another difficulty. Paper money came after the era of precious metals and proved to be a better option after they were successfully introduced in China. Central banks could control paper money through the buying and selling of security bills. This at least implied that economic activities could be kept under control. This continued until late in the early 21st century when digital currency started to gain ground. With this development' money was just the same but had an added feature of being equivalent to a change in digits on a computer. With the global financial crisis of 2008' global financial activities ground to a halt. Lehman Brothers and other key players in the US financial market declared bankruptcy. A critical look into this crisis revealed that decisions made by key players and institutions in the global financial sector were to a large extent responsible for the crisis. In response to this' an anonymous person or group of persons under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto introduced a blockchain based cryptocurrency. The system introduced in the bitcoin whitepaper retained all the good qualities of previous currencies. The decentralization in the barter economy' the innovation in digital money' and the store of value in precious metals. Added to this is the fact that the original bitcoin idea foresaw some of its shortcomings. Bitcoin knew about attackers and gave reasons why such attacks would be at least difficult or unreasonable. All these are possible in bitcoin because of the parent blockchain technology which is simply a distributed ledger showing who owns or would own what amount of what defined in bitcoins. The network is secured by a special branch of mathematics known as cryptography. Bitcoin makes nearly everything possible but these also come with some shortfalls. Criminals could find a good hideout in bitcoins anonymous nature' the level of advancement featured in bitcoin means that wide adoption would depend on some level of literacy' and the last problem comes from the difficulty for authorities to regulate its activities adding again to the risk in adoption. Tax evasion would also be quite easy and untraceable. These are the cons of adopting bitcoin. For the problem of criminals' it has been more of attack on exchanges than the cryptocurrency networks. This means that the application of more measures to forestall risks would go a long way. There is a case of a country that has reached a successful resolution in regulating cryptocurrencies. Malta remains the first and only country to have reached that end. The EU the United States' India and Japan are making progress in this direction. Aside from these' bitcoin’s transaction speed of about 10 minutes' this is even faster in newer altcoins. There is indeed more to come even in spite of the current fluctuation and deep lows than ever before reached by bitcoin and the altcoins in the cryptocurrency market. We may be unable to say for example that bitcoin would completely replace fiat currencies because development around the world is uneven. There may' however' be in fact more chances that this would be the case in the offing. As for concerns about what this article really stands on and a possible answer to the question presented by the topic. We would clearly say that there is no other path that is as promising or as progressive as the blockchain and cryptocurrency. Smart contracts in the etherium and EOS blockchains would replace layers Online.io would be a step into the future with a secured internet and IOTA may well become the future of blockchain technology. As a matter of fact' it is clear that cryptocurrency would eventually replace fiat currency' this would take a reasonable time may be decades or even a century' who knows? The future would speak for itself.

Read More

Saturday, July 7: there is little action on the crypto markets today, with most coins either up or down by small percentages over the last 24 hours, according to Coinmarketcap. The total market capitalization is up by a little under $1 billion since the same time yesterday. Bitcoin (BTC) is hovering around $6,635 as of press time. While it is experiencing almost no movement either up or down, it has still managed to keep this week’s gains, as it is up around 4 percent since last Saturday. Similarly, Ethereum (ETH) is standing its ground, at around $467, up a little under 1 percent in 24 hours to press time and about 5.5 percent over the past seven days. Total market cap of all cryptocurrencies is at around $266 billion as of press time, remaining relatively stable over the past 24 hours. The indecisiveness of the markets has been mirrored by a mix of positive and negative news. French government official Jean-Pierre Landau has called for a hands-off approach to crypto, whereas Germany’s Ministry of Finance has adopted a more cautious approach, saying that state-issued digital currencies are associated with “not well understood” risks. On a more positive side, there have been news of two key professionals joining the blockchain industry: the Winklevoss twins’ Gemini crypto exchange has hired NYSE Chief Information Officer Robert Cornish, and Facebook had seen it’s Director of Engineering Evan Cheng move to the same position at the company’s blockchain team.

Read More
logo


INDUSTRIES


SOLUTIONS


TECHNOLOGIES


COMPANY


12 Place de la Défense 92974
Paris- la Défense.
France


71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden. London WC2H 9JQ,
United Kingdom

logo
INDUSTRIES


SOLUTIONS


TECHNOLOGIES


COMPANY



12 Place de la Défense 92974
Paris- la Défense.
France


71-75 Shelton Street Covent
Garden. London WC2H 9JQ,
United Kingdom