Avtar Sehra
Aug 24, 2017 · 2 min read

I deliberately did not mention any current “information providers” to not legitimise them as they currently have zero accountability on the information they provide. But this could change, if they are held to the quality of information they provide and the “ratings” they offer. At the moment it’s not much more than a film critics opinion. This is fine for a good read, but not exactly what you want to base investment decisions on. In addition, there is no best practice or controls around conflicts of interest i.e. Such information forms also gaining fees for promoting ICOs.

To anyone who relies on “information providers” needs to be very very careful. These are currently merely “data aggregators” as there is no standard or best practice to assess instruments such as ICO’s. Most of the current ICOs have already found ways to appear legitimate, and with a detailed assessment of their white paper you can be sure that they are unlikely to succeed. However, their only saving grace is that with the large amount of funds they raise they can pivot and become successful in another way, which is good for the founders and other equity investors to whom they have fiduciary responsibility. However, in that situation the token holders will likely lose out anyway! So my suggestion to anyone entering this space will be to show some humility, and assume no one knows anything, and treat this as a game of poker at best (which requires some skill and assumes the investor is knowledgeable in finance and risk management) or a lottery at worst (which just requires investors to participate and gain as much exposure as they can afford).

Note: I will add this as a footnote to the above article, to provide more clarity on this view.

)

    Avtar Sehra

    Written by

    CEO and Product Architect @Nivaura, previously a Financial Engineer and Theoretical Physicist Fascinated with the Group Theory of Rubix Cubes