ICO is more centralized than you may think
ICO is more centralized than you may think
People once have thought that ICO was sexy enough to disrupt VCs. Startups no longer need to succumb to VCs, no more questions like “what if Google copies your idea?” or “what’s your USP?” or “what’s the difference between your idea and their ideas”, Hallelujah!
But what’s the difference when you have to succumb to “ICO Advisors”? What’s the difference when you have to spend a marketing budget to sell your ICO, which is even higher than the pity angel investments you have begged for from your Uncle John or Auntie Maria? Don’t forget you also need to pay an ICO underwriter to handle all the above for you.
As a tiny blockchain startup, if you want to launch an ICO, you may need to spend all your resources (aka time and money), which you originally plan to spend on your product, on the matters relating to ICO instead.
Then we have this ecosystem now:
1) Renowned influencers sell their names to startups to launch ICO
2) Well-funded startups use their fund to boost their ICO further
3) Successful ICO means a successful startup (money means success, right?)
4) Successful startup creates successful cofounders
5) Successful cofounders “advise” or even invest in other blockchain startups to launch ICO
6) New startups have successful ICO, create more renowned influencers
7) Repeat
Who is financing this deep food chain of ICO market? The VCs. But my real question is here: when so many stakeholders are working on different sections of this food chain, who the hell is actually developing disruptive products?
(Originally posted on Forbole Blog)
