Perhaps in 2016 one could launch an ICO without disclosing who the founders were, especially as the crypto community accepted the explanation of “privacy: blindly as a legitimate reason for those establishing a new tokenised business to not disclose themselves. However, in 2017/18 we saw too many “pump-and-dump” scams and the ethos has completely swung away from the privacy of the founders to absolute transparency.
This has meant that individuals running ICOs are far more concerned with the legal implications of their actions and founders understand that mistakes in the area of Anti Money Laundering & Countering of Terrorist Financing (“AML/CFT”) carry enormous personal risk and unverified source of funds leads to significant money laundering risks, terrorist financing risks and other potentially criminal activities, punishable by a significant custodial sentence.
Now we are seeing credible business people launch ICOs who are far more concerned with the long-term value and protecting themselves in a supportive jurisdiction by:
a) ensuring the legal integrity of the ICO with international and domestic AML/CFT
b) understand and engage with data protection rules
c) efficient corporate structuring
d) reducing risks of receiving the proceeds of crime/terrorism
e) avoiding non-compliance with local company laws
f) working with partners who have access to FIAT banking facilities to pay suppliers and staff
g) paying professional and layers fees to structure the ICO correctly so they can obtain a listing on premium cryptocurrency exchanges, as failure to do so can result on not being able to list, or later delisted, vastly devaluing the tokens worth for holders
Demonstrating an ICO is conducted to globally acceptable standards under a reputable financial services regulator is a great way to alleviate fears and ‘hard cap’ the ICO.