[coconutrandom]

This is mostly inaccurate, the code behind the token creation and distribution is public. And while it's technically possible, in practice most token contracts do not give the creators the ability to mint to tokens on a whim.

[alexasmyths]

Yes, 'technologically', sure.

However, as we see with stocks, there's nothing stopping an entity from doing whatever they please in the end.

Like issuing a second set of coins, at par or equal value to the 'current coins'. Possibly requiring that the first tranche be redeemed for the second.

Or whatever shenanigans they want.

With the Kik ICO, they've kept a huge flood of coins to do with as they please. And they will in fact do whatever they please with them.

For these 'company managed' coins, I think they serve as a de-facto 'central bank'. They'll find a way to change the rules if they choose to.

[woah]

Your connection between developers keeping a large portion of the coins, and being able to "change the rules" doesn't make any sense. Developers keeping coins is actually very positive, and if I were to buy into an ICO, I would greatly prefer this. Otherwise the developers have no incentive to keep working hard and meeting milestones, since they already have more cash than they would be able to increase the value of their holdings by.

[alexasmyths]

The coins are worthless.

And the companies can make them more worthless at any time by changing the rules. Which they will, if they can get away with it.