Wouldn’t it have been possible to structure a crypto as a normal company and issue stock and get…
Mathieu Dumoulin
271

If you structure it as a normal company with stock, etc. why put it on a decentralized public blockchain at all? If you have a company with stock, your incentive is to grow the value of the stock. Such a goal will be at odds with growing the value of a decentralized token.

That said: I agree with your criticisms of many ICOs. Some seem like they never needed a token to make the project happen in the first place (and would be better served by being a centralized company with stock). And others where there didn’t seem to be a reason for the token value to increase regardless of how popular the product got. Plus a lot of shams looking for a way around regulation.

I think part of the problem is that, in the early days, no one wanted to make a token too much like a stock because then it’s a security and you can’t sell it to the general public. Which means bye bye public blockchain. But you do want the value of your token to increase as the network grows more popular/useful because one of the big draws of crypto (maybe more in the early days) was decentralization of power and wealth creation. And so many projects end up in a weird middle ground where we treat them as “investments” but the token economics is designed to make it not an investment.