Why is value flowing to ICOs? It's diversification of Bitcoin(jonathannen.com)
jonathannen.com
Why is value flowing to ICOs? It's diversification of Bitcoin
https://jonathannen.com/speculation-diversification.html
83 comments
It's a mixed bag of legit projects, outright scams, and that grey-area of tech-bro charlatans. It's the last one that concerns me:
CEO - Serial Blockchain Entrepreneur. In this for the long haul!
CTO - "Crypto expert" == Business guy who understands blockchain superficially
CFO - This guy is real, of course.
Working code! = Fork
Whitepaper = Buzzword language that just says their going to tokenize something. 'LegitCoin will tokenize the derivatives market for solar!'
Create positive pump articles and videos for us for free tokens!
My non-technical brother in law asks me every other day to look into one of these turds for him, and I have to deflate his bubble.
CEO - Serial Blockchain Entrepreneur. In this for the long haul!
CTO - "Crypto expert" == Business guy who understands blockchain superficially
CFO - This guy is real, of course.
Working code! = Fork
Whitepaper = Buzzword language that just says their going to tokenize something. 'LegitCoin will tokenize the derivatives market for solar!'
Create positive pump articles and videos for us for free tokens!
My non-technical brother in law asks me every other day to look into one of these turds for him, and I have to deflate his bubble.
Spot on. Shitcoins, as they call them.
At this very early stage of adoption, most people who are smart enough to figure out how to trade crypto should be smart enough to do some research before buying 1000 vaporware coins.
As the doors open to the wider population, though, it's inevitable that hucksters will try to separate regular folk from their hard earned cash.
The notion is reprehensible (and goes against the spirit of cryptocurrencies) so some regulation around accountability would not be unwelcome.
At this very early stage of adoption, most people who are smart enough to figure out how to trade crypto should be smart enough to do some research before buying 1000 vaporware coins.
As the doors open to the wider population, though, it's inevitable that hucksters will try to separate regular folk from their hard earned cash.
The notion is reprehensible (and goes against the spirit of cryptocurrencies) so some regulation around accountability would not be unwelcome.
> Currencies like Monero and Litecoin are more truly speculative in that their value rests solely in perceived future utility and adoption.
You have bitcoin & litecoin reversed there friend. Compare organic looking transaction count and volume, adjusting for market cap.
You have bitcoin & litecoin reversed there friend. Compare organic looking transaction count and volume, adjusting for market cap.
... or maybe ICO's are clever ways of extorting even more money from naive cryptocurrency day traders?
I received my first Bitcoin-related spam call from an overseas callcentre this week.
If his English had been a little more intelligible, I'd have been interested to find out whether he was shilling for an ICO or a fake exchange.
If his English had been a little more intelligible, I'd have been interested to find out whether he was shilling for an ICO or a fake exchange.
It's probably also a dream come true for anyone who wants to launder some money.
Monero certainly is. Money laundering is now solved thanks to this.
Want to hide your money? Use Monero. There are even services that fulfill BTC orders: you send them Monero, they send BTC to the specified address. There are also services that go the other way.
It uses ring encryption and appears to be well-implemented. It will be with us for a long time.
Want to hide your money? Use Monero. There are even services that fulfill BTC orders: you send them Monero, they send BTC to the specified address. There are also services that go the other way.
It uses ring encryption and appears to be well-implemented. It will be with us for a long time.
Monero might obscure the origin of the funds, but so does using cash. Money laundering requires an extra step - finding a plausible alternative origin of the dirty funds.
Monero in and of itself is fungible, but it doesn't 'solve' money laundering.
Monero in and of itself is fungible, but it doesn't 'solve' money laundering.
Exactly. It's never been difficult to move money around freely if you know how to. It's the "layering" which is the hard part i.e. avoiding questions from the relevant authorities of "where did this money come from". Monero doesn't provide good answers to those, and if anything it would raise suspicions.
Someone can send someone else $1M in Monero and there's nothing you can do to know about it. You can't do that very easily with cash. It's trivial with Monero.
As far as raising questions, it's like cash, but it's also extremely convenient to transfer large amounts.
As far as raising questions, it's like cash, but it's also extremely convenient to transfer large amounts.
How do you figure? I think the general wisdom among people who have a deep understanding of block-chains is that it is about the worst way you could possibly try to launder money. Every transaction you make is forever immortalized in a publicly accessible record book. Not to mention that there is strong KYC at the entry exit points between cash and crypto currencies.
You make/invest heavily into an ICO, send your CP/ordered hit/fentanyl proceeds into it, and then sell your ICO tokens for ETH.
Most ICOs don't do KYC; if they're asking for crypto-based investments they likely aren't asking for conventional investors and aren't vetting the speculators who only want to know how long they have to hold the token before dumping on the market
Most ICOs don't do KYC; if they're asking for crypto-based investments they likely aren't asking for conventional investors and aren't vetting the speculators who only want to know how long they have to hold the token before dumping on the market
thats no longer true. Now-a-days, ICOs ask for all kind of KYC documents - passports, utility bills, etc.
A few maybe. It's definitely the reason we (Pink) went ICO for funding, to be able to raise money because real-world contacts didn't like the potential link to funding our venture.
I read your site last night and was intrigued by the bold use of traditional finance language to describe your ICO. "Token-shares", dividends, etc. You're not worried about US securities law?
We are worried about the SEC as much as we're worried about any government action. We're operating very tightly.
It's a travesty that some of these companies raise millions without giving up equity, voting, or dividends.
It's a travesty that some of these companies raise millions without giving up equity, voting, or dividends.
And yet hackers steal these coins and seem to do alright, Tumblers seem to anonymize currency too.
Do you have any stats on the percentage of traditional financial crimes that go unsolved vs the percentage of crypto-currency crimes that go unsolved? You would have a hard time finding a major crypto-currency heist, dark market, or rogue exchange that hasn't been tracked down and shut down.
Yes but cryptocurrency thieves (i.e. exchange hackers, etc) are currently batting around 100% uncaught, afaik.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2017/09/17/kim-nilsson-...
Pretty sure they got the guy behind a lot of the thefts when they arrested that BTC-e guy earlier this year.
Pretty sure they got the guy behind a lot of the thefts when they arrested that BTC-e guy earlier this year.
The biggest tumbler closed down and none of the other existing tumblers are very trustful.
There are a few coins that offer complete privacy. XMR, Pivx, ZCoin. Just to name a few.
Only one of those three is private by default. If it isnt private by default, calling it a privacy coin or saying it offers 'complete privacy' is farcical. Monero is the only way to go at the moment.
Even Monero isn't completely private. If you use an exchange to get in an out of Monero, they can probably link your transactions given an approximate timeframe.
Until we have serious ringsizes this will remain an issue.
Until we have serious ringsizes this will remain an issue.
I bought a small and equal amount of ZCash and Monero, so I don't really have a horse in this race, but what's your objection to having optional in the clear transactions? It just sounds like the flimsy Monero shilling that predictably pops up on any public forum when privacy coins are mentioned.
I wouldn't describe LocalBitcoins as having "strong KYC"...
LocalBitcoins is pretty impractical for significant sums of cash.
If you have significant sums of cash, you can pay someone to sit on LocalBitcoins cashing out all day.
How do you mean impractical? I've done 100k+ trades just fine. For bigger sums you'll usually have the exchanger fly one of their reps over from another country.
I would consider LBTC rather impractical for smaller trades though.
I would consider LBTC rather impractical for smaller trades though.
[deleted]
> "One of the fundamentals of markets is that value needs to go to work."
Indeed. And since there is little real (read: economically useful) work that Bitcoin can actually do, speculators pile them into other types of coin that are, at best, an additional level of indirection between Bitcoin and real value.
Hm, creating complicated financial derivatives to hide the underlying non-viability of the core product. Now why does that sound familiar.
Indeed. And since there is little real (read: economically useful) work that Bitcoin can actually do, speculators pile them into other types of coin that are, at best, an additional level of indirection between Bitcoin and real value.
Hm, creating complicated financial derivatives to hide the underlying non-viability of the core product. Now why does that sound familiar.
Next thing you know, someone will be making $500,000 ICO loans to retail workers, and selling on the loans to be bundled into AAA-rated securitizations. I wonder if Moody's rates ICO's?
... and developers will be paid in 'coins', issued by the company.
"Join my startup, your salary is 100 Million Kangaroo coins per year. We call them 'ru-bucks' because we're cool like that."
"Join my startup, your salary is 100 Million Kangaroo coins per year. We call them 'ru-bucks' because we're cool like that."
Many devs people get part of their compensation in stock grants. For stocks that pay no dividend.
In most cases the difference between stock in a start-up and Ru-bucks is negligible.
Ru-bucks are actually liquid, and have a market (even if thinly traded), so you could at least hope to value them.
I will admit that in many cases, especially if the company does not do well, stocks = ru-bucks.
But if a company does well, stocks >>> ru-bucks.
Or at least they should ...
Sadly, I actually believe my little satire will become reality very soon, as I believe coins will be handed out as comp ... I'll bet a Kik, very soon.
But if a company does well, stocks >>> ru-bucks.
Or at least they should ...
Sadly, I actually believe my little satire will become reality very soon, as I believe coins will be handed out as comp ... I'll bet a Kik, very soon.
I spent the weekend with some employees of a company that did an ICO earlier this year, and YES they are paid in the ICO coins.
And if people accept that as payment, what does it mean? Too many tech grads? Too few tech jobs?
The obvious answer is of cause: we need more visas for developers
Out of Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google only Apple pays a dividend.
EDIT: Point being that this isn't just a start up thing.
EDIT: Point being that this isn't just a start up thing.
Dividends do not matter.
A companies assets belong the shareholder - so if the money is in Google's bank account or transferred to the investors bank account, it the same thing, technically.
Imagine a corp with $10B in the bank, valued at $25B, implying 'future returns in present dollars' are worth $15B. Add that to $10B in the bank you get $25B.
Now - if they company paid out $10B in a massive dividend - what is the company now worth? --> $15B.
When money comes out of the company, the value of the company goes down by that amount.
Technically.
Obviously it's more complicated, and it relates a lot to whether or not a company can re-invest the company better than an investor could otherwise.
But in the end, it's all baked into the value of the stock.
So it really doesn't matter that much.
Most startups don't pay dividends because cash is much more valuable, and they have places to spend it.
A company sitting on a hoard of cash, probably should pay dividends, otherwise, it's operating ratios aren't going to be that great.
Ex: MSFT bank account was so big at one point, analysts had to treat MS as 1/2 a 'software company' and 1/2 a 'hedge fund' - because the performance of MS was only about 1/2 'how their business was doing' - the rest of their stock performance was just 'how their fund managers were doing'. 5% returns on MS's investments, are maybe worse than the bigger returns they get by investing in their business.
Only companies with big cash piles - or - really predictable set of earnings pay dividends. If you are a massive company that sells 'crackers' and have been around for 120 years, and your business doesn't change much and are healthy - you probably pay dividends. Startups - not so much.
A companies assets belong the shareholder - so if the money is in Google's bank account or transferred to the investors bank account, it the same thing, technically.
Imagine a corp with $10B in the bank, valued at $25B, implying 'future returns in present dollars' are worth $15B. Add that to $10B in the bank you get $25B.
Now - if they company paid out $10B in a massive dividend - what is the company now worth? --> $15B.
When money comes out of the company, the value of the company goes down by that amount.
Technically.
Obviously it's more complicated, and it relates a lot to whether or not a company can re-invest the company better than an investor could otherwise.
But in the end, it's all baked into the value of the stock.
So it really doesn't matter that much.
Most startups don't pay dividends because cash is much more valuable, and they have places to spend it.
A company sitting on a hoard of cash, probably should pay dividends, otherwise, it's operating ratios aren't going to be that great.
Ex: MSFT bank account was so big at one point, analysts had to treat MS as 1/2 a 'software company' and 1/2 a 'hedge fund' - because the performance of MS was only about 1/2 'how their business was doing' - the rest of their stock performance was just 'how their fund managers were doing'. 5% returns on MS's investments, are maybe worse than the bigger returns they get by investing in their business.
Only companies with big cash piles - or - really predictable set of earnings pay dividends. If you are a massive company that sells 'crackers' and have been around for 120 years, and your business doesn't change much and are healthy - you probably pay dividends. Startups - not so much.
> And since there is little real (read: economically useful) work that Bitcoin can actually do
Curious - Why do you feel that's an effect of Bitcoin? Arguably you could make that same statement with "USD" instead of BTC.
Curious - Why do you feel that's an effect of Bitcoin? Arguably you could make that same statement with "USD" instead of BTC.
USD can satisfy your tax burden to the US government. It is the only object that can do so.
>> "One of the fundamentals of markets is that value needs to go to work."
> Indeed.
Art?
Modern art is rather like bitcoin - mostly pointless work of no value with pseudo-randomly attributed value, used for portable hoards of those capable of dealing in it.
> Indeed.
Art?
Modern art is rather like bitcoin - mostly pointless work of no value with pseudo-randomly attributed value, used for portable hoards of those capable of dealing in it.
The author might be missing the woods for the trees. ICO's are at heart a rethink on the angel-vc-ipo funding cycle. ICO's offer very clear advantages in terms of increasing distribution, decreasing friction, aligning investors to product success and builds upon emerging ideas around equity/control structuring.
That they offer a diversification of bitcoin is merely an oversight in the grand scheme of things.
That they offer a diversification of bitcoin is merely an oversight in the grand scheme of things.
The most important advantages to ICO issuers are: lack of transparency, reporting requirements, no dilution, no oversight, the ability to 'print coins' as they please. In other words, absolute power over the speculators that buy them.
I'm not sure if I want to be on the other end of that deal ...
I'm not sure if I want to be on the other end of that deal ...
This is mostly inaccurate, the code behind the token creation and distribution is public. And while it's technically possible, in practice most token contracts do not give the creators the ability to mint to tokens on a whim.
Yes, 'technologically', sure.
However, as we see with stocks, there's nothing stopping an entity from doing whatever they please in the end.
Like issuing a second set of coins, at par or equal value to the 'current coins'. Possibly requiring that the first tranche be redeemed for the second.
Or whatever shenanigans they want.
With the Kik ICO, they've kept a huge flood of coins to do with as they please. And they will in fact do whatever they please with them.
For these 'company managed' coins, I think they serve as a de-facto 'central bank'. They'll find a way to change the rules if they choose to.
However, as we see with stocks, there's nothing stopping an entity from doing whatever they please in the end.
Like issuing a second set of coins, at par or equal value to the 'current coins'. Possibly requiring that the first tranche be redeemed for the second.
Or whatever shenanigans they want.
With the Kik ICO, they've kept a huge flood of coins to do with as they please. And they will in fact do whatever they please with them.
For these 'company managed' coins, I think they serve as a de-facto 'central bank'. They'll find a way to change the rules if they choose to.
Your connection between developers keeping a large portion of the coins, and being able to "change the rules" doesn't make any sense. Developers keeping coins is actually very positive, and if I were to buy into an ICO, I would greatly prefer this. Otherwise the developers have no incentive to keep working hard and meeting milestones, since they already have more cash than they would be able to increase the value of their holdings by.
The coins are worthless.
And the companies can make them more worthless at any time by changing the rules. Which they will, if they can get away with it.
And the companies can make them more worthless at any time by changing the rules. Which they will, if they can get away with it.
Given the way that they seem to crash in sync, it would appear that they offer very little in the way of diversification.
The dream of getting rich quick is what is driving most of ICOs, if not all. There's no rhyme or reason to it. People just want to 100x their money quickly as possible and see ICOs as their chance. It's basically gambling, but lately much better returns than the casinos.
Tell me how is this objectively different than VCs ? Other than it's now available to everyone instead reserved to the elite ?
In both cases, you are well aware most of your investments will fail and you're expecting one 10x or 100x that will make it up for other losses . aka gambling ...
In both cases, you are well aware most of your investments will fail and you're expecting one 10x or 100x that will make it up for other losses . aka gambling ...
With VCs, there is reason to believe that the expected value of your total investments is positive. With ICOs, the claim is that many people mean to cash out by selling before the bubble bursts.
>>> there is reason to believe that the expected value of your total investments is positive
Hmm, I wonder if the zero interest rate "trickle down" free money that is keeping stocks artificially inflated has anything to do with this assumption ?
>>> With ICOs, the claim is that many people mean to cash out by selling before the bubble bursts.
Yeah totally not the same as founders rushing to growth with bullshit things like "growth hacking", then rushing to exit to cashout before everyone realizing their business is not actually solving a real problem. ( like all the messenger apps/chat bot frenzy of last year)
Hmm, I wonder if the zero interest rate "trickle down" free money that is keeping stocks artificially inflated has anything to do with this assumption ?
>>> With ICOs, the claim is that many people mean to cash out by selling before the bubble bursts.
Yeah totally not the same as founders rushing to growth with bullshit things like "growth hacking", then rushing to exit to cashout before everyone realizing their business is not actually solving a real problem. ( like all the messenger apps/chat bot frenzy of last year)
Keeping things to the elite is unfair to common people, but it is also a pragrammatic way of protecting stupid people from themselves.
Ah the famous "I know what's good for you" argument that was used the same way by the church to forbid access to book printing ! I think these coming technologies will prove all people can think for themselves ;)
The M1 money supply in any currency is always a tiny fraction of the money supply in comparison to the M2, M3, and MB, which are illiquid and used for speculation.
It isn't mysterious that this is also the result in cryptocurrency as well.
An oft parroted rebuttal is that bitcoin is being used for speculation and very little is being used for purchases of goods and services, even though that fits the same behavior of national currencies it is used to discredit bitcoin's use as a currency.
It looks like it is growing the way one would expect.
It isn't mysterious that this is also the result in cryptocurrency as well.
An oft parroted rebuttal is that bitcoin is being used for speculation and very little is being used for purchases of goods and services, even though that fits the same behavior of national currencies it is used to discredit bitcoin's use as a currency.
It looks like it is growing the way one would expect.
> An oft parroted rebuttal is that bitcoin is being used for speculation and very little is being used for purchases of goods and services, even though that fits the same behavior of national currencies
Are you asserting that a sizeable fraction of U.S. dollar M3 or even M2 is sitting idle speculating on the future value of the U.S. dollar?
Rates are built into modern currencies in a way they were not for gold. That's Bitcoin's fundamental problem. It's a 19th-century currency relearning old economics.
Are you asserting that a sizeable fraction of U.S. dollar M3 or even M2 is sitting idle speculating on the future value of the U.S. dollar?
Rates are built into modern currencies in a way they were not for gold. That's Bitcoin's fundamental problem. It's a 19th-century currency relearning old economics.
> Are you asserting that a sizeable fraction of U.S. dollar M3 or even M2 is sitting idle speculating on the future value of the U.S. dollar?
No. But that also happens whether it is inadvertently just sitting there, or in bonds as part of a massive carry trade
Secondly did you read the article? It is about sizeable portions of bitcoin being used to invest in ICOs, which I was agreeing with and pointing out how otherwise illiquid portions of national currencies are used this way as well
No. But that also happens whether it is inadvertently just sitting there, or in bonds as part of a massive carry trade
Secondly did you read the article? It is about sizeable portions of bitcoin being used to invest in ICOs, which I was agreeing with and pointing out how otherwise illiquid portions of national currencies are used this way as well
> that also happens whether it is inadvertently just sitting there, or in bonds
Bonds fund useful activity. Most ICOs have yet to finance a single developer's salary.
Bonds fund useful activity. Most ICOs have yet to finance a single developer's salary.
District0x is paying salaries like that and many others.
The point the parent was making is that the money IS SITTING there. And bonds are not M0.... you are proving his point.
Anyone holding USD in a deposit account or loaned it out is speculating that the value of USD will remain almost the same (willing to lose 2% to inflation).
Of course someone holding a currency expects value to hold or go up. Unfortunately value of USD and other fiat goes down at exponential rate and by end of century will be practically worthless.
Imagine paper bills in year 2100. No?
Then you can imagine USA will digitize it's currency on some Blockchain of their own(this is a no brainer).
Now imagine THE Fed changing interest rates (aka Coin Emission Rate) as they please.
Pretty soon people will diversify their currency holdings away from a single country/government that can change emission (interest) rate at will and has onerous reporting and surveillance requirements.
Logical conclusion is a supra/trans-national global currency something Bitcoin or Monero.
"Granpa, was it true that when you were young you used to get paid in tree cotton papers?"
The point the parent was making is that the money IS SITTING there. And bonds are not M0.... you are proving his point.
Anyone holding USD in a deposit account or loaned it out is speculating that the value of USD will remain almost the same (willing to lose 2% to inflation).
Of course someone holding a currency expects value to hold or go up. Unfortunately value of USD and other fiat goes down at exponential rate and by end of century will be practically worthless.
Imagine paper bills in year 2100. No?
Then you can imagine USA will digitize it's currency on some Blockchain of their own(this is a no brainer).
Now imagine THE Fed changing interest rates (aka Coin Emission Rate) as they please.
Pretty soon people will diversify their currency holdings away from a single country/government that can change emission (interest) rate at will and has onerous reporting and surveillance requirements.
Logical conclusion is a supra/trans-national global currency something Bitcoin or Monero.
"Granpa, was it true that when you were young you used to get paid in tree cotton papers?"
People like having recourse with trusted third parties. They also like universally accepted currency.
Your quest to find a distinction is going to continue to fall apart.
Most forms of capital formation have no bearing on anything in physical goods and services economy, colloquially called "main street". ICOs are no different and I'm not sure why you feel the need to single them out.
The point here is that people are growing this currency's economy by reinvesting in new projects within that economy, just like they do in national currency economies. Thats what the article is about, thats why I've been pointing out, and what is hard to accept about that?
Most forms of capital formation have no bearing on anything in physical goods and services economy, colloquially called "main street". ICOs are no different and I'm not sure why you feel the need to single them out.
The point here is that people are growing this currency's economy by reinvesting in new projects within that economy, just like they do in national currency economies. Thats what the article is about, thats why I've been pointing out, and what is hard to accept about that?
Most ICOs are financing developer salaries. You can quibble about whether the ICOs are funding useful work - but they're definitely paying developers.
"Most ICOs are financing developer salaries."
If they are underwritten by VC's you can be assured that the terms heavily favour them, and the immediate value is going into their pockets.
It's the ultimate rub.
A free, legal way to print Monopoly money that people will trade for real money.
If they are underwritten by VC's you can be assured that the terms heavily favour them, and the immediate value is going into their pockets.
It's the ultimate rub.
A free, legal way to print Monopoly money that people will trade for real money.
You could say that about nearly any investment. The trick is picking the ones that aren't Monopoly money.
That's roughly 100 percent price correlated. tether, iota, emercoin and few others aren't as correlated. Not a good diversification when they all go up and down together. (If you're diversifying to reduce risk.)
Depends what type of risk you're trying to reduce. Trying to reduce the risk of prices dropping? Not very useful. Trying to reduce the risk of them turning out to be scams? If you diversify enough you might end up with one which isn't.
It's more than that; it's to provide additional capacity to the cryptocurrency 'inter-net'.
A single blockchain cannot physically scale beyond a certain number of transactions (based on Amdahl's law), but the amount of value that passes through a single network can in fact keep going up indefinitely (e.g. when the price of the coin goes up, the value of transactions go up, even though the actual number of transactions stay the same) - But the flat transaction fees become prohibitively high and only suitable for large transactions; that's why you need new networks with lower-priced coins and fees to handle the load of smaller transactions.
A single blockchain cannot physically scale beyond a certain number of transactions (based on Amdahl's law), but the amount of value that passes through a single network can in fact keep going up indefinitely (e.g. when the price of the coin goes up, the value of transactions go up, even though the actual number of transactions stay the same) - But the flat transaction fees become prohibitively high and only suitable for large transactions; that's why you need new networks with lower-priced coins and fees to handle the load of smaller transactions.
also, IMO, quite a few think of it as lottery money. Maybe they mined it early or bought in very cheap, now they have a lot of money. So what do you do when you get a bunch of money almost all of the sudden?
Ethereum tokens are apps,basically, they are not even a currency...
And some ICOs nowadays raise money to tokenify real world finance, look up genesis vision
But they are not. Altcoin value relative to Bitcoin peaked in june 2017
That characterization doesn't really tell the whole story though. By my reading of this chart[1] altcoins went from ~15% of the total market cap to ~62% before falling to ~52%. That's still a lot more of the value in altcoins than at the beginning of the year.
1: https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage
1: https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentage
ICOs appear to be more like Kickstarter with tokens. Some are in it for speculation and possible wealth, others really like the underlying product/game/app.*
For example, French indie game 'Beyond the void' is integrated with an Ethereum blockchain. People fund the dev and receive tokens to use in the game. "Investors" win when the game is live. That their token can be changed for other currencies is secondary.
People will get burned. Just see the scammy ICO ads on your Facebook feed. As with Kickstarter (with its 21% tech project success rate), diligence is required.
But that any one of us can relatively easily exchange objects of value across hundreds of different projects is just about revolutionary.
* Currencies like Monero and Litecoin are more truly speculative in that their value rests solely in perceived future utility and adoption.