[sanderjd]

These are all great criticisms, but I struggle to agree with you that they make these projects "scams".

By way of analogy, I remember the ruby on rails really struggled with scalability for a long time, and it was a big problem that lots of people, both proponents and opponents, talked about a lot. Nonetheless it turned out to be quite useful and definitely not a scam. I saw similar dynamics in both AngularJS and React. I'm trying to think of a good example on the other side, something that was hyped but criticized and didn't really succeed due to its criticisms being right ... maybe something like Meteor, it seemed promising but flawed and never really overcame its flaws. But none of these were "scams", just different flawed projects that succeeded or failed despite or because of their flaws.

By my lights, the top two you mentioned (I don't know enough about the third to say) fit very much into this same mould, I think they are flawed projects that will succeed or fail despite or because of widely recognized flaws which are or aren't eventually overcome. But not scams.

I think scams have to have a component of intentionality, that all effort at appearing legitimate and promising is conscientiously only for show. Contra that, I think lots of people are making a good faith effort to make bitcoin and ethereum useful. They may very well fail, but I don't think most people involved are conscientiously doing the work just for show.

[BobbyJo]

I think making promises and taking money from people based on promises you very likely can't fulfill is enough to label something as a scam, and that seems to be the case with all of the points mentioned above.

[sanderjd]

Is this also true of all startups that take funding and then fail? That would be one reasonable definition of "scam" I think, but personally I think it is more useful to have different terminology for speculative high risk ventures that make a good faith effort but fail vs. malicious schemes designed only to take money and run. I think there are lots of both things in this cryptocurrency space, but I think it's reductive to throw your hands up and say they're all the same.

[sanderjd]

Debating myself a bit: the reason startups tend to attract fewer scams is that only accredited investors can invest in them. There is definitely something to be said for that!

[arcticbull]

Generally you're only going to get decent money from bigger names (or at least one leading the round) - and a bad reputation will make it quite unlikely you'll get to play again. This helps avoid many straight-up scams like Dentacoin (lol).

Then, your future rounds of investment are conditional on demonstrated success. Your A can be a bridge round based on traction or a materialized idea. However, your B is generally based on hard numbers.

ICOs tend to get series F/G money up front on a hope and a prayer.

Circle CI raised $100M in a Series F. Check out this whose-who of token failure that all raised the same amount or much more on day 1 (https://decrypt.co/53950/the-10-biggest-icos-heres-where-the...).

[applepple]

Maybe not completely, but they all profit from having an element of deception. They are drawing attention away from better projects by hoarding all the top spots on all the exchanges and ranking websites. They are destroying the industry and hurting people IMO.

[sanderjd]

It is not clear to me where the "deception" is, even if the rest of what you said is right. The things mentioned in this thread are common knowledge and widely discussed.