[brndnmtthws]

Are you suggesting investors in other startups are not also speculators? Do you think every silicon valley startup is destined to succeed and be the next Google/Apple/FB?

The tech is cool, and the new funding model is also fascinating. Never before has it been possible for everyone to participate in the early funding of startups.

Sure, most will fail, but that's not different from the old model. The biggest difference is that it's not based on cronyism anymore.

[simonebrunozzi]

Big difference: when you invest in a startup, you get equity and certain rights. The founders can't screw you too easily.

With an ICO, you don't get any equity - you only get to use a service, maybe, in the future. Most ICOs are therefore only a speculation.

[proofofstake]

From the article:

> The incentive for holding OMGs, is to take part in the network validation process. We also see a long term value/appreciation in the OMG price as more and more transactions take place on the network.

So you can stake your tokens for a cut of the transaction fees (much like miners do).

[Kalium]

I'm suggesting that, as a sibling pointed out, there are differences beyond purely who is speculating. Investing in the structure that ICOs are outside comes with a certain level of rights and protections.

Have you considered the possibility that there may potentially be good reasons for investor accreditation systems? That the reasons for such systems might not be solely to keep the highly profitable world of venture capital the exclusive preserve of the super-rich?

[taysic]

The main problem imo is the amount of money they are getting. You need to stay a little hungry to be motivated to build a great product. They basically have "FU" money off the bat and no legal obligation to the token buyers from what I understand. The human economics don't work out.