ICO Structure — Why We Are Doing It Right

Here at Cryptopay we’ve been watching ICOs and their parent companies preparing and gearing up for their respective coin sales. Our co-founder, George Basiladze, has been advising on some large projects while also serving as an Escrow for other smaller projects. Without a doubt, this has served as a valuable resource for us regarding our upcoming ICO.

The vast majority of ICOs tend to share the same structure — a shiny website, a whitepaper and big plans. This structure seems fitting for new projects that lack any track record, existing business, or products behind them. We believe that a lot of projects will succeed and that we’ll see many new brands and products as a result of this current “ICO-mania.”

At the same time, many existing companies are launching ICOs using this system. They establish a separate brand that serves as an SPV (special purpose vehicle) that doesn’t fit into their existing business structure. While this practice may serve some purpose in some rare cases, Cryptopay has decided not follow this route.

Our ICO is Cryptopay, it’s not some affiliate brand that is run by the founders of Cryptopay. We’re launching the ICO, and we have no desire to hide that Cryptopay is behind it. Creating some artificial distance between the new project and the current business doesn’t make sense. Followers of this strategy believe that this “dual structure” serves as a type of insurance in case something goes wrong. However, this is not the case. The dual structure makes no difference from a legal and operational standpoint.

Cryptopay has been up and running for nearly 4 years now, it’s the main brand, and it’s selling tokens. We’re hopeful that we can set a new bar of transparency, trust, and engagement for the ICO market. We know what we’re doing and believe our clients and partners are willing to establish a new set of standards for the ICO market with us.