Initial Coin Offerings

Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ether encourage the owners of computing resources to bring ever-increasing levels of processing power to bear in validating the distributed ledger of cryptocurrency purchases and sales.  Initial coin offerings (ICOs) involve the sale of cryptocurrency coins or tokens with the aid of on white papers.  Crypto coin white papers involve a mixture of scientific, sociopolitical, and economic speech.  They often contain extended arguments for how users of the coins and the Internet or society in general could benefit from a new way of organizing economic relations, assembling and deploying assets, or exchanging messages or entitlements.  While they share some similarities with forms of commercial speech that enjoy quite limited First Amendment protection, they are arguably more similar to other economic statements that enjoy First Amendment protection against censorship, or to direct advertisements that are deemed insufficiently misleading to result in civil liability.  Nevertheless, some interpretations of U.S. securities and commodities law would prohibit authors of such white papers from raising funds for crypto coin platforms if the coin's users expect to earn a return on their investment and rely on the coin issuer's expertise or representations. 

This article explores principles of free expression that could shield truthful speech and subjective opinions about new crypto coins from some of the worst chilling effects of U.S. laws.  It examines ways in which crypto coins may benefit marketplace participants and economic efficiency, including by providing a beneficial alternative to traditional software app stores, logistics infrastructures, or banking and payment systems.  It then surveys the First Amendment and other constitutional issues that onerous regulations raise, and draws analogies to doctrines that reconcile the freedom of economic expression with the cause of consumer or investor protection under the Lanham Act, the Securities Exchange Act, state deceptive practices laws, and the law of warranties.  Several themes in the case law are ripe for application to ICOs: the need for precision and proportionality in framing regulation, the proscription against regulatory overkill and one-size-fits-all approaches, and the requirement that basic freedoms be preserved.  More specifically, the securities or commodities are not properly read as applying to many crypto coin offering papers, and describes other concepts such as virtual commodities or virtual barter systems from other jurisdictions that may be a better fit. 

The article urges American lawyers and judges to probe thoroughly whether the interests served by prohibitions and penalties on crypto coin speech justify the burdens imposed on information providers. Regulating false statements of existing fact and enhancing the remedies for making them will be more effective and less constitutionally infirm measures than those aimed at preempting merely potential harm.  Courts must balance the values of fraud prevention and remediation with the values of freedom of expression and expanded economic opportunity.  Analogous fields of law provide several tools with which to achieve this balance, including the distinction between general or universal fraud prohibitions and narrower securities or commodities regulation regimes, the difference between forward-looking and other statements in several area of fraud law, First Amendment principles governing professional and occupational licensing, and rules against vague or discriminatorily enforced regulations. 

keywords: cryptocurrencies, tokens, appcoins, altcoins, coins, coin offerings, ICOs, "initial coin offerings", free speech, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of information, cloud computing, virtualization, virtual communities,  virtual currencies, virtual commodities, digital barter, securities law, regulation, consumer protection, false advertising, Lanham Act, misleading, First Amendment, commercial speech, least restrictive means, overbreadth, vagueness, Fifth Amendment, due process, human rights, Telegram, TON, Kik, Kin, Kik Interactive, Bitcoin, Ether, smart contracts, crowdfunding, SEC, The DAO, CFTC, CFPB, European Union, EU, banking, risk, innovation, technology, financial technology, payment systems, multistakeholder governance, polycentric governance, puffery, bespeaks caution doctrine, California, New York, Texas, occupational licensing, libertarianism

This article presents a comparative analysis of the application of US and EU securities laws to initial coin offerings (ICOs), or token sales. An extensive token taxonomy framework is proposed to categorize digital assets in order to advance a more precise discussion on the legal classification and regulation of tokens. For the US, a full analysis of the application of the Howey test to different types of tokens gives insight into classification of tokens as a security (“investment contract”) under Section 2(a)(1) of the US Securities Act of 1933 and 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The analysis shows that most, if not all, so-called utility tokens can be classified as a security in the US. A possible ‘sufficiency-of-decentralization-test’ is also explored, while taking prior case law and the multiple dimensions of decentralization of blockchain projects into account.

For EU financial law, the analysis in this paper focuses on the classification of tokens as ‘transferable securities’ under Art. 4(1)(44) of MIFiD II. The analysis shows that, in contrast to the US, pure utility tokens might not be deemed transferable securities under the EU securities regime. Across EU Member States however, large differences exist in terms of the legal classification of most tokens, which result from the freedom provided to EU Member States in transposing the MIFiD II definition of transferable securities into national law. The analysis in this paper provides insight into the two main approaches adhered to by EU Member States in the implementation of this definition, as well as their consequences for the legal classification of tokens. Conclusions are subsequently drawn on possible offering strategies adopted by issuers for future token sales and regulatory developments in the US and EU.

Blockchainappfactory provides a quick, secure and a highly reliable procedure to raise your Initial Coin Offering. They are experienced in cryptocurrency development is unmatched and it enables to provide optimized, stable ICO solutions which are tailor-made to match your requirements. With a track record of building intricate models for Cryptocurrency tokens, completion of your ICO token development before your ICO launch.

The rise of crypto-assets and crypto-assets corporate finance transactions – like Initial Coin Offerings, Security Token Offerings and respective variants – are disrupting the way companies raise funds. At the same time the sudden rise of crypto finance transactions has created unprecedented challenges for regulators, financial market authorities, corporate finance lawyers and professionals. Crypto-assets corporate finance transactions are essentially borderless, global and interconnected. Their borderless nature was the core inspiration of this work. This book, indeed, is an attempt to address to a comparative and functional analysis of crypto-assets corporate finance transactions.

This paper examines the performance of cryptocurrencies issued in initial coin offerings (ICOs) over a three-year period after the initial exchange listing. Average (median) ICO underpricing amounts to 15% (3%), even though 4 out of 10 ICOs destroy value on the first trading day. Liquidity, market capitalization, and high-low price ratios predict returns. Long-run buy-and-hold returns are positive for the mean and negative for the median. For holding periods between one and twenty-four months, the median ICO depreciates by 30%. Evidently, there is substantial positive skewness in the cryptocurrency market. Further, a size effect emerges from the data as an empirical regularity: Large ICOs are more often overpriced and underperform in the long run. JEL classification: G24, G32, K22, L26.

Disclosures in initial coin offerings (ICOs) have ranged widely from informative to incomplete to fraudulent. Consequently, advocates for the investing public have, understandably, called for the registration of ICOs to facilitate better disclosures. As this chapter shows, however, registration under the 1933 Securities Act is, as currently enacted, a weak mechanism for mandating the disclosures needed for informed investments in ICO tokens. Many ICO issuances offer non-traditional, non-financial rights that require and involve different pricing considerations than traditional common equity and debt, and are embedded in technical systems unanticipated by the New Deal. ICOs thus require a reconceptualization of longstanding disclosure obligations and safeguards, as well as a revamped approach towards entities tasked with validating disclosures. This chapter charts key provisions in the Securities Act’s Form S-1, crowdfunding’s Form C, Form 1-A for Regulation A , and Rule 144A to provide just such a policy framework.

In this article, the author tracks developments in bitcoin trading and considers regulatory responses.
Key Points:
● 2017 has witnessed a so-called bitcoin bubble, as entrepreneurs and professional investors rushed into the market to take a bet on the upcoming cryptocurrency age. The price of a bitcoin exceeded $19,300 in December 2017, worth only $0.06 in July 2010.
● The popularity of bitcoin mining and trading activities has raised legal and regulatory concerns pertaining to anti-money laundering, evasion of forex regulations, the illegal fundraising of start-ups by Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), as well as a potential financial crisis.
● Global financial regulators have acted proactively to regulate bitcoin. Most recently, China, once accounting for 90% of bitcoin trading volume, issued an immediate ban of ICOs and ordered the reorganisation of three major bitcoin exchanges: OKCoin, Huobi and BTCC. Over-The-Counter (OTC) transactions have not been affected.
● Financial authorities in certain countries have been testing state-backed cryptocurrencies.

Seen as a rebellious technological invention that could overturn the world's financial institutions, cryptocurrency has endured the speculations of the wild market. Though people are familiar with crypto terms such as Ethereum, Bitcoin, and more, very few understand the fundamental working principle behind cryptocurrency especially when it comes to the financial arena. So, we have put together a mini guide to help you out with determining whether cryptocurrencies are for you and to also keep you away from getting ripped off. What Is Cryptocurrency? Let's start with the basics-what is cryptocurrency. Typically, cryptocurrency is just a way of managing and transferring value online using cryptographical functions. As it leverages blockchain technology, it is decentralized, transparent, and immutable-the three greatest features of cryptocurrency. Among the three features, decentralization happens to be the greatest most important feature of cryptocurrency as this feature makes cryptocurrency uncontrolled by any form of central authorities. Additionally, decentralized nature also makes cryptocurrency immune to the traditional ways of control and interference established by the government. Cryptocurrency exchanges can take place between two parties through both private and public keys. Such transfers being devoid of steep fees charged by traditional financial institutions happens with minimal processing fees as well. Cryptocurrency Mining The interesting fact about cryptocurrency mining is that it allows almost anyone to be a miner. As cryptocurrency follow a decentralized structure, it doesn't hold the authority supervise this task. Thus, cryptocurrency must have some mechanism in order to prevent the ruling party from abusing this ability. For instance, what if there was someone who created thousands of peers and forged the transactions? It will lead to the system breaking down immediately. Due to this reason, Satoshi, when he invented cryptocurrency, defined a rule for miners-every miner needs to invest some part of their work into their system to get qualified to do this task. In fact, what they actually have do is find a hash. A hash is nothing but the resultant product of a cryptographic function that links the newly created block with its antecedent and the entire process is called the Proof-of-Work. When it comes to Bitcoin, Proof-of-Work follows the SHA 256 algorithm. The Top 5 Cryptocurrency Bitcoin Bitcoin is the go-to leader when it comes to the cryptocurrency industry. In fact, according to the studies conducted by Coin Market Cap, the market capitalization of the world's top digital currency is more than $179 billion, with a price per coin of more than $9,9901. Ethereum Ethereum has made it to this list because it is that digital token which sparked the invention of Initial Coin Offering (ICO). Though it is comparatively smaller than Bitcoin, it holds a trading price of around $185 per token and a market cap of $20 billion. The recent studies have found out the total number of ETH tokens present in circulation around the world to be more than 100.7 million. Ripple Next on our list is the pretty popular Ripple that holds a total market capitalization of over $11.8 billion. Unlike the other cryptocurrencies that we have on this list, the value of XRP tokens is too

This paper examines the performance of cryptocurrencies issued in initial coin offerings (ICOs) over a three-year period after the initial exchange listing. Average (median) ICO underpricing amounts to 15% (3%), even though 4 out of 10 ICOs destroy value on the first trading day. Liquidity, market capitalization, and high-low price ratios predict returns. Long-run buy-and-hold returns are positive for the mean and negative for the median. For holding periods between one and twenty-four months, the median ICO depreciates by 30%. Evidently, there is substantial positive skewness in the cryptocurrency market. Further, a size effect emerges from the data as an empirical regularity: Large ICOs are more often overpriced and underperform in the long run. JEL classification: G24, G32, K22, L26.

How do applications of emergent technologies contribute to the social legitimacy of finance? To address this question, we examine a set of technologies that have received increasing industry, media, and scholarly attention over the past decade: blockchains. Harnessing the concepts of ‘moral economy’ and ‘scandal’, we identify both possibilities and limits for blockchain applications to legitimate a range of monetary and investment activities. However, we also find that a persistent individualisation of responsibility for failures and shortcomings with ‘live’ blockchain experimentation has undermined the potentially legitimating aspects of this technology. Combining a reliance on technological fixes with a persistent individualist moral economy, we conclude, works against efforts to confront head-on the tensions underpinning the on-going legitimacy crises facing finance.

Le società moderne sono protagoniste di un complesso processo evolutivo, tale che – quasi quotidianamente – si assiste all’introduzione di strumenti della tecnica e dell’informatica sempre più efficienti e puntuali.
Tale processo evolutivo esercita una maggiore pressione sul Diritto che, come è noto, ha dei tempi di adattamento piuttosto lenti. Molto spesso, infatti, l’introduzione di una nuova normativa prende atto di un fenomeno che ha già avuto modo di svilupparsi ampiamente dalla sua nascita, risultando la regolamentazione spesso contradditoria e poco utile in sede applicativa. Ciononostante, non è possibile ignorare lo sforzo dommatico di quella dottrina che, avvalendosi degli istituti tradizionali della disciplina giuridica, contribuisce alla definizione – e talvolta alla normativizzazione – del settore tecnologico: basti pensare agli studi relativi a FinTech, consistente nell’applicazione delle nuove tecnologie ai settori finanziari, teleologicamente orientata ad apportare vantaggi tanto al consumatore quanto all’impresa.
Tanto premesso, questo elaborato ha lo scopo di individuare e commentare l’evoluzione giuridica e l’applicazione nell’impresa di una delle tecnologie più interessanti e discusse degli ultimi dieci anni : la Blockchain.
Blockchain è una tecnologia dalla portata rivoluzionaria, tanto dall’essere considerata la chiave di volta per l’evoluzione dell’informazione digitale ad una vera e propria identità elettronica della realtà sensibile – Internet of Things -. La blockchain è, essenzialmente, un registro distribuito in una rete peer-to-peer ove ogni unità fondamentale (per semplicità, definita “Blocco”) è interconnessa all’unità precedente ed a quella successiva, in modo tale che le informazioni contenute in essa siano certe ed immutabili.
Da questa prima e breve definizione di Blockchain – al cui approfondimento si rimanda alle pagine successive dell’elaborato – appaiono evidenti le conseguenze che la sua applicazione potrebbe avere una volta inserita nei quotidiani rapporti giuridici. L’immutabilità dell’informazione faciliterebbe la prova dell’esistenza del rapporto, necessitando dell’introduzione di meccanismi di accertamento ad-hoc.
Percepita la capacità rivoluzionaria di Blockchain, la dottrina si è impegnata affinché tale strumento trovasse una collocazione – anche primordiale – negli istituti giuridici dell’ordinamento ed, allo stesso tempo, ha cercato di sollecitare il legislatore alla promulgazione di una normativa generale che, con il recente “Decreto Semplificazioni” del 2019, ha visto la luce in Italia.
In conclusione, l’ elaborato vuole illustrare non solo le più recenti valutazioni sulla blockchain tanto dottrinarie quanto normative, ma anche di come, dalle prime applicazioni di questa tecnologia al mondo delle criptovalute, vi è un interesse crescente da parte degli operatori giuridico-economici al suo utilizzo tanto nei rapporti societari – come la circolazione delle partecipazioni sociali – quanto nel diritto d’impresa in genere, potendo la blockchain apportare un miglioramento alla produttività ed alla sicurezza dei rapporti economici sia con il consumatore che con altri imprenditori – operanti o meno nello stesso settore di mercato - : sul tema, è doveroso citare le importantissime applicazioni di blockchain alla tutela del diritto d’autore ed al migliore sfruttamento economico della proprietà industriale (marchi e brevetti) che ha avuto dei risultati pionieristici nella lotta all’abuso ed alla contraffazione o comunque nel sollecitare la ricerca di un regime giuridico unitario e semplificato per le IPs.

Il fenomeno delle criptovalute rappresenta un quid novi di difficile collocazione sistematica sul piano giuridico perché, non presupponendo l’intermediazione di alcun sistema istituzionale, espone il mercato a delle incertezze dovute non tanto alle potenziali alee economiche, quanto a diversi problemi giuridici di tipo relazionale.
Alla domanda “che cos’è giuridicamente una criptovaluta?” non è possibile, al momento, offrire una risposta univoca e convincente in un panorama di evidente incertezza normativa e imbarazzi ermeneutici offerti dalla giurisprudenza che sta iniziando a interessarsi al problema.
Anche Consob e Antitrust iniziano ad assumere posizioni restrittive e interdittive sulle ICO e si prospetta una fase di contenzioso amministrativo dove non è del tutto chiaro quale potrà essere la posizione del giudice amministrativo. L’emersione di tutte queste problematiche, impone quindi una riflessione giuridica che tenga conto delle peculiarità proprie del fenomeno cercando di coglierne a pieno l’effettiva natura giuridica di “cosa” come oggetto di diritto.

This work aims to analyze FinTech for SMEs. Specifically the difficult regulatory environment faced today for the regulators and supervisors at either international and European level. Moreover it will be our concern to analyse instruments and options related to FinTech which SMEs can possibly use, by understanding also the transition from intermediation of financial services to the disintermediation, particularly Initial Coin Offerings and Security Token Offerings.

Dans une société mondiale en pleine ébullition, la confiance est un équilibre fragile qui nécessite énergie et information, sur elle repose notre collaboration sociétale et nos fondamentaux transactionnels. A l’heure d’Internet et des flux d’information libérés, vers quelle confiance dirigeons-nous ? Depuis 2008, les institutions bancaires sont dans le viseur d’une crise de confiance généralisée. En parallèle, la confiance de l’homme envers les algorithmes n’a jamais été aussi grande. Un changement de modèle économique est en cours, où l’information est la nouvelle source de création de valeur. Le système bancaire, « tiers de confiance » de premier ordre, doit s’adapter aux évolutions sans quoi il prend le risque de sombrer. Internet est le fruit d’une intelligence collective où règne une « autoroute d’information », la technologie de la blockchain nous promet une « autoroute transactionnelle ». Qui de mieux placé que les institutions bancaires, organes centralisateurs des échanges, pour prendre ce virage inéluctable ? Comment la technologie de la Blockchain, aussi disruptive qu’elle semble être, peut faciliter la désintermédiation d’un système bancaire, et être source de création de valeur dans un contexte de changement de modèle et de digitalisation de la société ? Les couches d’intermédiations bancaires existantes risquent fortement d’être remodelées. Finance de marché, financement du commerce international, opérations sociétaires, conformité, capital investissement… les univers d’application de cette technologie semblent englober toutes les activités d’intermédiation bancaire. Or, dix années après l’apparition de la première Blockchain, nous en sommes encore aujourd’hui à essayer de la comprendre et de l’explorer, avec pourtant la conviction que celle-ci pourra un jour contribuer de façon durable au secteur et à la société. Au-delà de l’état de l’art, une étude qualitative avec une approche inductive du sujet est menée dans ce mémoire. Un cas pratique, transverse, celui du groupe Crédit Agricole, m’a permis de me plonger dans la réalité de ce qui peut être discuté dans un groupe bancaire d’envergure internationale. Personnellement, la rédaction de ce mémoire de recherche s’inscrit dans la continuité de mon plan de carrière dans l’univers de la finance et de ma certitude que nous entrons actuellement dans un changement de modèle transactionnel. Enfin, ce mémoire offre 10 grandes conclusions que vous pouvez retrouver à la page 111 ainsi que plusieurs schémas d’adoption, permettant d’identifier les process et infrastructures à mettre en place pour faciliter l’adoption de l’innovation. Les dirigeants peuvent avoir recours à ces schémas pour juger le stade de développement de la technologie de la Blockchains dans les différentes couches d’intermédiation bancaire, ainsi qu’évaluer les investissements stratégiques nécessaires au regard de leurs ressources. Les enjeux de la blockchain vont au-delà des simples applications transactionnelles et des bouleversements économiques que la technologie engendre, elles demandent aux acteurs économiques de repenser leurs façons de collaborer. D’une manière générale, l’enjeu réel se trouve dans la manière dont les organisations vont collaborer pour créer de la valeur, ensemble.

Esta investigación analiza algunas de las principales ventajas y oportunidades de mejora que plantea el empleo de las criptomonedas en el crowdfunding 1 y en otras estrategias de negocio en una empresa o holding para promover su crecimiento internacionalmente. Se analizan las ventajas del uso de las criptomonedas para financiar proyectos mediante las initial coin offerings, tanto para los emisores, como para los inversionistas; así como las oportunidades de mejora necesarias regulatoriamente, de modo que se proteja a estos últimos de estafas y se consolide la aceptación plena de esta modalidad colaborativa de financiamiento sin intermediarios en la comunidad empresarial globalmente. Palabras Claves: criptomonedas, tokens, crowdfunding, initial coin offering, financiamiento virtual, sistemas contables distribuidos, blockchain, tangle. This paper analyzes some of the main advantages and opportunities for improvement posed by the use of cryptocurrencies in crowdfunding and other business strategies in a firm or company holding in order to promote its growth internationally. It places specific attention to the advantages of using cryptocurrencies to finance projects through initial coin offerings, for both issuers and investors. Attention is also placed on the regulatory improvement opportunities needed for both protecting them, but especially the latter, from scams, and consolidating full acceptance of this financing option in the international business community.

This article aims to provide a conceptual framework for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to evaluate the appropriation of blockchain technology for their business needs and challenges. This conceptual framework aims to respond to the problem of increasing speculations surrounding the blockchain that is considered to be an absolute and innovative solution to many business related problems. However, this argument might not be realistic for SMEs despite this assumption. The main argument of the article is that SMEs should be skeptical while evaluating the appropriation of this technology for their business needs and they should follow a tailored approach whilst adopting it. Otherwise, the likelihood is high that a short-term and unstructured knowledge management process to adopt blockchain will end up with a waste of resources. The present paper conceptualizes an appropriation framework within nine factors namely, reduction of costs, internalization, digital representation of assets, unalterable data recording, network size, transparent and synchronized ledger, scalability, fair trade, and financing. Given the field's infancy state of development, the paper relies on a qualitative document analysis involving SME literature and extant literature and white papers of blockchain applications.

This paper examines the market for initial coin offerings (ICOs). ICOs are smart contracts based on blockchain technology that are designed for entrepreneurs to raise external finance by issuing tokens without an intermediary. Unlike existing mechanisms for early-stage finance, tokens potentially provide investors with rapid exit opportunities thanks to liquid trading platforms. The marketability of tokens offers novel insights into entrepreneurial finance, which I explore in this paper. First, I document that investors earn on average 8.2% on the first day of trading. However, about 40% of all ICOs destroy investor value on the first day of trading. Second, I explore the determinants of market outcomes and find that management quality and the ICO profile are positively correlated with the funding amount and returns, whereas highly visionary projects have a negative effect. Among the 21% of all tokens that get delisted from a major exchange platform, highly visionary projects are more likely to fail, which investors anticipate. Third, I explore the sensitivity of the ICO market to adverse industry events such as China's ban of ICOs, the hack of leading ledgers, and the marketing ban on FaceBook. I find that the ICO market is highly susceptible to such environmental shocks, resulting in substantial welfare losses for investors.

O presente texto procura mapear preocupações regulatórias envolvendo o financiamento de projetos via criptoativos , particularmente com respeito à incidência ou não do regime jurídico dos valores mobiliários, o que pode trazer custos significativos e até mesmo inviabilizar a execução do projeto.  Com o intuito de trazer aspectos práticos para este debate, descrevemos os casos SEC vs. Munchee  e Bomesp/Niobium, apreciados, respectivamente, na jurisdição norte-americana e no Brasil, em que situações bastante semelhantes resultaram em respostas diferentes dos reguladores do mercado de capitais quanto à qualificação de criptoativos como valores mobiliários.

Well-tempered offerings. Coin offerings at a river-crossing, as exemplified by the ford at Selles (dép. Marne / F)

During the survey by B. Lambot in 1995-1996 of the tributaries and their crossings around Château-Porcien and Rethel (dép. Ardennes / F) much pottery, a ring and 36 coins came to light at the edge of a ford above the Suippe near Selles (dép. Marne / F). The La Tène period and Roman Imperial coins represent offerings which were thrown into the river
while crossing in a certainly common custom. The dendrochronological dating of a post corresponds to the latest Roman issues; the last crossings can be dated to the time of Marcus Aurelius at the earliest. A comparison with the small coins gathered from other fords and bridges shows that in antiquity not just any coin was thrown into the water while
crossing it. As far as possible one chose an as, which is the most offered coin at religious sites. Thus, small coins do not form a representative cross-section of the coins in circulation, especially from the 2nd century onwards, since the sestertius (the equivalent of four asses and which is completely missing in the coin offerings of Selles) would have been the most common denomination in circulation.

The present study aims at framing the technical performance of the «Initial Coin Offering» in the wider context of the crypto-assets market, considering the possibility of reducing the complex dynamics concerning the phenomenon in the context of pre-existing legal categories or, alternatively, exploring the opportunity of an ad hoc regulation, adept at fully incorporating technical and legal challenges. Moreover, this study plans to investigate and question about the nature of hybrid «utility tokens», as these, most of all, create doubts about their legal qualification, due to their complex functional structure. Indeed, these tokens, besides the right to enjoy a good or a service, can also offer returns of financial nature, which put them in an area bordering the different survey sets: if on the one hand they are close to the empirical and more immediate set, which leads them back to their “consumeristic” area of belonging, on the other, there is the one which aims at verifying the prevalence of a concrete function of such crypto-assets. Herein, the study tries to analyze the perspective outlined by the second approach in the current legal framework, necessarily influenced by the passage of the UE Proposal for a Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets.

How do applications of emergent technologies contribute to the social legitimacy of finance? To address this question, we examine a set of technologies that have received increasing industry, media, and scholarly attention over the past decade: blockchains. Harnessing the concepts of ‘moral economy’ and ‘scandal’, we identify both possibilities and limits for blockchain applications to legitimate a range of monetary and investment activities. However, we also find that a persistent individualisation of responsibility for failures and shortcomings with ‘live’ blockchain experimentation has undermined the potentially legitimating aspects of this technology. Combining a reliance on technological fixes with a persistent individualist moral economy, we conclude, works against efforts to confront head-on the tensions underpinning the on-going legitimacy crises facing finance.

Esta investigación analiza algunas de las principales ventajas y oportunidades de mejora que plantea el empleo de las criptomonedas en el crowdfunding1 y en otras estrategias de negocio en una empresa o holding para promover su crecimiento internacionalmente. Se analizan las ventajas del uso de las criptomonedas para financiar proyectos mediante las initial coin offerings, tanto para los emisores, como para los inversionistas; así como las oportunidades de mejora necesarias regulatoriamente, de modo que se proteja a estos últimos de estafas y se consolide la aceptación plena de esta modalidad colaborativa de financiamiento sin intermediarios en la comunidad empresarial globalmente.

Existing research assumes that once firms have determined their target R&D intensity, they can adjust instantaneously and fully to their target R&D intensity, regardless of their past R&D intensity. In this study, we draw on the partial adjustment framework to examine the dynamics of firms' adjustment toward their target R&D intensity. We find that firms usually do not adjust instantaneously or fully to their target R&D intensity; they typically close half of the gap between their past and target R&D intensity in a year. Furthermore, we find that the speed of adjustment varies widely across firms. Firms with more cash flows, less debt, and more new equity financing have higher speed of adjustment. We draw implications for the dynamics of R&D investments and Schumpeterian competition.

This paper aims to give an introductory explanation to the problems and risks associated with ICO investments as well as define the regulatory problems dealing with the methods for accounting to do with ICO funds raised. The article will inform readers of the risks with ICOs and encourage investors to do their research before buying into ICOs and press for higher standards in coordination with ICO management and taxation.

Compared to established firms, startups face more financing problems. Appropriate fundraising is a major challenge in the process of launching ventures. Entrepreneurial finance is focused on foreign investments through shares by investors such as angel investors and venture capitals. However, due to the challenges of these financing methods, enabling entrepreneurs to access new funding opportunities is needed. Due to low costs and quick funding, financial crowdsourcing proves to be one of the most important resources in this regard. Blockchain has numerous applications, among which bitcoin is one example. Using value tokenization through smart contracts, blockchain technology can store any value or asset in the form of a token. Crowdfunding via token offering or initial coin offering is an innovative funding method where startups may raise fund by offering tokens. Therefore, this study addressed modern entrepreneurial financing methods through a systematic review of the literature. After the screening, 67 papers were selected. Once data were analyzed, we comprehensively reviewed cryptocurrency-based crowdfunding and designed our roadmap on the basis of this innovative method. Finally, the study examined the existing gaps and the challenges before entrepreneurs who intend to apply this funding method.

In 2016, when Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) were first introduced, financial markets, scholars, and entrepreneurs were captivated by the opportunities and challenges the technology offered. ICOs quickly became one of the hottest topics in the financial markets. They typically use blockchain technology to offer so-called “tokens” that can confer various rights to their holders. The amount of money raised via ICOs has reached $27 billion by the end of 2018. Commentators have described the ICO bonanza as a new gold rush. Nevertheless, the legal framework for ICOs remains unclear because traditional securities regulation is designed for classical securities that are traded on a stock exchange. In late 2017, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released two statements suggesting that tokens may be subject to U.S. securities regulation if they meet the requirements for an “investment contract” as laid out in the Howey test. However, regulators in Asia and Europe remain quite ...

A defining feature of initial coin offerings (ICOs) is that entrepreneurs bear the full marginal investment cost but profit only partially from the marginal investment payoff. This design may exacerbate agency conflicts inherent in corporate finance. As a consequence, signals of entrepreneurial quality such as CEO loyalty, which is an established concept in social psychology and can easily be linked to potential agency conflicts in corporate settings, might be a first-order determinant of economic outcomes in the ICO market. Consistent with this, I find that loyal CEOs have to offer less financial incentives to attract investors and are still able to raise more proceeds, conduct ICOs more thoroughly , and are less likely to fail. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that asymmetric information between entrepreneurs and investors entail agency costs that are decreasing in CEO loyalty. JEL classification: G24, G32, K22, L26.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the main legal and policy implications of blockchain technology. It proceeds in four steps. First, the chapter traces the technical and legal evolution of blockchain applications since the early days of bitcoin, highlighting in particular the political ambitions and tensions that have marked many of these projects from the start. Second, it shows how blockchain applications have created new calculative spaces of financial markets that seek to challenge existing forms of money. Third, it discusses the core points of friction with incumbent legal systems, with a particular focus on the regulability of decentralized systems in general and data protection concerns in particular. Fourth, the chapter provides an outline to the contributions to the volume, which span a wide array of topics at the intersection of blockchain, law, and politics.

Kripto paraların popülerleşmeye başlamasıyla birlikte, özellikle 2017 yılından itibaren, çok sayıda kripto para piyasaya sürülmüştür. Bu kripto paraların çoğunluğu İlk Dijital Para Arzı (ICO) ile fonlanmıştır ve günümüzde de fonlanmaya devam etmektedir. Yeni piyasaya sürülecek kripto paraların büyük bir kısmı, ICO aşamasında yeteri kadar fonlanamadığı için başarısız olmaktadır. Piyasaya sürülmesi planlanan kripto paraların başarılı bir ICO aşaması geçirmesi için hangi modern pazarlama stratejilerine yönelmeleri gerektiği bir karar problemi olarak karşılarına çıkmaktadır. Çalışmada, bu karar problemine yönelik, 5 uzmanın görüşlerine başvurularak, çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi olan TOPSİS yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, ICO aşamasında kullanılmak üzere optimum pazarlama stratejisi viral pazarlama çıkmıştır. Viral pazarlama stratejisini, ağızdan ağıza pazarlama ve niş pazarlama izlemiştir. ICO aşaması için en kötü pazarlama stratejisi ise; gerilla pazarlama olarak çıkmıştır.

With the increasing popularity of cryptocurrencies, especially since 2017, a large number of crypto currencies have been launched. The majority of these cryptocurrencies were funded by the Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) and continue to be funded today. Most of the cryptocurrencies to be launched on the market fail due to insufficient funding at the ICO stage. It emerges as a decision problem which modern marketing strategies to be used by the crypto currencies that are planned to be launched, to have a successful ICO phase. In the study, the TOPSIS method, which is a multi-criteria decision making method, was used by referring to the opinions of 5 experts for this decision problem. Results of the study shows that, viral marketing emerged as the optimum marketing strategy to be used in the ICO phase. Viral marketing strategy was followed by word of mouth and niche marketing. The worst marketing strategy for the ICO stage is; originated as guerrilla marketing.

OVERVIEW

PIO or Public Investment Offering, is a new approach to fundraising, being offered with learning all mistakes and limitations of ICO, IEO, and STO. From the first glance, PIO looks very similar to a traditional venture funding, where the lead investor is the first in the deal and brings all follow-up investors on board. This way, the lead investor shows its trust and faith in the funding project and guarantees the agreement.

This paper provides the first evidence of a moral hazard in signaling in an entrepreneurial finance context, by examining token offerings or Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). Entrepreneurs' ability to signal quality is crucial to succeeding in the competition for growth capital. However, the absence of institutions that verify endogenous signals may induce a moral hazard in signaling.Consistent with this hypothesis, artificial linguistic intelligence indicates that token issuers sys-tematically exaggerate information disclosed in whitepapers. Exaggerating entrepreneurs raisemore funds in less time, suggesting that investors do not see through this practice initially.Eventually, the crowd learns about the exaggeration bias through trading with other investors.The resulting investor disappointment causes the cryptocurrency to depreciate and the probability of platform failure to increase.

The authors have carried out an examination of the status of tokens and tokenization in financial markets with regulatory problems, which lack proposals for solutions based on a generalized consensus. Overall, it seems to authors that cutting the Gordian knot of tokenization and tokens is the essential need to achieve a consensual and efficient protocol of unequivocal attribution of legal responsibility to obtain satisfactory levels of transparency and reliability in all transactions. In particular, tokens that claim to be money appear to have a more complicated potential development than the rest, since there is a controversy between the pressures of the sector agents and the specific restrictions indicated by Knapp and Ingham and maintained by the states and regulators with respect to its exclusive regulatory capacity over money as a means of payment of a wide and reliable acceptance.

Novas tecnologias no âmbito da economia digital, tais como a initial coin offering (ICO) e os seus ativos virtuais, os tokens e as criptomoedas, quando associadas a softwares que proporcionam anonimato em torno de suas transações, potencializam os riscos de criminalidade virtual, lavagem de dinheiro, financiamento ao terrorismo e até mesmo ciberataques ao sistema financeiro estatal. Tais riscos cibernéticos têm demandado dos governos o desenvolvimento de sistemas de segurança da atividade financeira no ciberespaço, envolvendo mecanismos de ciberdefesa, órgãos de fiscalização, bem como aparatos normativos para regular, prevenir e reprimir ciberataques. Tendo em vista esse panorama, esta pesquisa visou descrever a sistemática brasileira de segurança da atividade financeira no ciberespaço, analisando-a frente ao fenômeno da initial coin offering (ICO) e seus ativos virtuais, chegando-se à conclusão de que o atual sistema é inaplicável a tal fenômeno.

This article aims to provide a conceptual framework for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to evaluate the appropriation of blockchain technology for their business needs and challenges. This conceptual framework aims to respond to the problem of increasing speculations surrounding the blockchain that is considered to be an absolute and innovative solution to many business-related problems. However, this argument might not be realistic for SMEs despite this assumption. The main argument of the article is that SMEs should be skeptical while evaluating the appropriation of this technology for their business needs and they should follow a tailored approach whilst adopting it. Otherwise, the likelihood is high that a short-term and unstructured knowledge management process to adopt blockchain will end up with a waste of resources. The present paper conceptualizes an appropriation framework within nine factors namely, reduction of costs, internalization, digital representation of ...

Launch your ICO successfully and see more investors funding for you with our robust ICO dashboard script. With the best frameworks and the most flexible codes, we deliver you a scalable ICO dashboard script that can be readily launched. Call us now.

ICOs are still in their infancy and there are no industry practices yet. Appropriate rules must be set to enable ICOs to obtain public trust and to expand as a sound and reliable financing method.

This paper discusses how a proactive self-regulation, ethical human behaviors, rigorous due diligence, improved governance, disclosure, investors protectionand accountability measures could be applied to lead to better quality ICOs, a more sustainable fundraising environment for all the parties involved and mitigate risks due to regulatory uncertainty. At the same time this article tries to propose a Corporate Crypto Conduct Code for businesses in this space and some starting points for regulators to think about ICO regulations.