actually one more AO3 thing, since I’ve seen it going around: guys, you are fine. open AO3 tabs are not a security threat. as far as I’m aware, there is not actually an active DNS attack. you may get a screen from your firewall, AO3’s firewall, or your browser warning you that there may be a DNS attack occurring. this means those things are working correctly (good!), but given that AO3 also appears to be trying to set up a cloudflare instance while under active siege, those are almost certainly false positives caused by the fact AO3 is completely reconfiguring their servers. (your browser is recognizing the site is re-routing you to a different place than expected and stopping you from going there, which is good, but also expected given AO3 is trying to set up cloudflare under active siege.) even if it is a DNS attack, currently open tabs will not suddenly steal your information. those are already loaded. they are inert. they will be fine. trying to open the AO3 homepage will probably not break anything. you won’t get anything (you’re most likely to see a cloudflare triage right now and then a “try again later”), but like, it’s not about to hurt you, especially if you don’t proceed past the warning screen (if you get it).

like, if you’re worried, don’t reload the site, but if you saw that warning page or have tabs open or tried to load it lately, you’re almost certainly totally fine. if there were an active DNS security threat or a reason to stop trying to visit the site, that would be communicated to us. it has not. the “don’t visit the site or else” that’s been spreading around has been entirely stated by unaffiliated tumblr users. don’t make up reasons to panic and spread reasons for people to panic that actively does not help anyone.

Fuck it. I’m going to detail Anonymous Sudan. This is going to be a long one, folks. If you’re curious, peak under the cut.

First off. Anonymous Sudan is not Sudanese. They are Russian. I’m going to referencing this report quite a bit, mostly because it’s very thorough and details it in a way the average person can understand. You’re also going to need to understand who Killmilk/Killnet is. I’ve seen chatter that “milk” is a Russian slur towards Ukrainians (which fits, given the war), but I can’t confirm or deny it.

Why is this Russian hacker group targeting a fanfic site and why are they trying to pretend to be Sudanese hackers?

They want money. A Bitcoin wallet filled with $30,000 USD, to be exact. Per my converter, that would be roughly 0.98 Bitcoin. American dollars go very far in Russian, especially if they are converted into something that is very hard to trace. Why are they using language of religious extremists? Because Russia is wildly homophobic as a nation and they want to make your life harder/ruin your day. Also, Ao3 is a soft target because it owns its own servers. In short, they are trolls who want money.

I’m pretty sure that Killmilk doesn’t care that Ao3 hosts gay fanfic. If he did, he wouldn’t be fucking around with Google translate like that. He just wants to make you angry and make you say stupid things on the internet that is going to make your life harder. Seriously, guys. Don’t fall into the trap, please? Don’t feed the trolls.

Yes, the English in the first screenshot came from Google translate. How do I know?

Well, a long time ago (2016-ish), it was a thing in the Warrior Cats fandom to take quotes from the book, feed it into several languages via Google Translate, and laugh at the results. Google Translate is not a 1:1 translation service. It guesses. A lot.

My gut feeling? The text went from Russian, to Arabic, to English, with Google Translate guessing each time (based on a previous guess) the words are translated. That’s how what I’m guessing was “porn” turned into “smut” and what was probably a slur turned into “LGBTQ+”. Google Translate does not like translating slurs and has been known to substituting what it thinks are less offensive words.

So how do we know they are Russian?

They hang out on Telegram, an app known to be used by Russian interests. They also posted purely in Russian until they fucked with Microsoft. Then, they switched to Arabic.

Here’s the kicker, though. Anonymous Sudan isn’t using Sudanese Arabic, English, or Nobiin. They’re using Modern Standard Arabic. Google Translate does not give you the option for Sudanese Arabic. It gives you the option for Nobiin (labeled as “Sudanese”), but not Sudanese Arabic.

In short, these guys are using the first likely language that pops up on Google Translate and hitting “enter”. Google Translate is free, easy, and looks right.

They also have ties to Killmilk/Killnet. Killmilk/Killnet has ties to the Wagner Group and the Kremlin. They are very bad people, doing very bad things.

So why did they do it?

They needed money. 30k USD in Russia buys you a lot of arms and ammunition. They went for a site that a lot of people use, that has flaws allowing for a DDOS attack, and waited to see if people would pay the ransom.

No, this is not a false flag by Ao3. Anonymous Sudan is a known entity with a known MO and a known habit of attacking Western sites. I know y’all hate Ao3, but please do some digging. Critical thinking is not the enemy.

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible.

The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters.

Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map.

It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more.

This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes.

As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector.

This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK).

Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet.

Images from Shutterstock.

Advertisement

Source link http://bit.ly/2RwkS4R

Negative SEO and DDoS Assault

What is Unfavorable Search Engine Optimization (SEO)?

Business owners stress over marketing their service, so they take steps to make it noticeable to the target audience online. But this may be the least of their fears given that deceitful rivals pop out from nowhere and assault their SEO rankings or get them prohibited from Google internet search engine for offenses.

Negativeseo.link has been a subject in mostly all internet marketing discussion forums where queries are included to know if competitors are capable of striking your website in such ferocity. Recent experiences have shown that negative techniques can detrimentally affect both Search Engine Optimization ranking and also Google reputation rating, as opposed to what has been claimed previously.

Google on its developed precaution to guarantee that internet search engine positions would certainly not be manipulated by the site owners. The charge is a stiff one - being outlawed from Google's search index quickly. Negative SEO techniques include the use of various backlinks indicating the targeted site to mislead Google's formula and also control SEO rankings.

When the Google spiders discover your site with an abundance of suspicious backlinks, it does the obvious point - punished you by taking you off Google's rankings. Many sites that are of high authority - local Chamber of Business, neighborhood education sites, professional organizations, charities, television, and information programs may have nothing to bother with it. These sites have much authority that no amount of adverse strikes can obtain them outlawed from Google.

Nonetheless, it is usually the smaller sized services as well as internet site owners who are a lot more at risk to such an assault. There are several traditional methods of just how these are done.

When you talk about negative SEO, you would certainly most likely think about spammers and also rivals whose need is to bring down your ranking or take you out of the Google search engines. Hackers on the prowl might locate vulnerabilities in your protection FTP logins for them to quickly assault it.

Hackers may be available in and also infuse spams or spam web links to modify your website. Another instance would be the spammers editing and enhancing your text file to avoid Google crawlers or limit Web Method (IP) within a specific variety. What happens following is that you will certainly be taken out of an online search engine and would probably contaminate site visitors of malware as well as viruses, unless the safety openings are plugged in.

This issue has been gone over in numerous online forums considering that it was seen that several sites sprouted up offering Negative SEO solutions at present. Being hit by this kind of strategy may not obtain you prohibited from Google right away, however, it can sure pull your ranking condition a pair of ladders down.

What can you do?

1. It may be a good concept to assess the sites that are being connected to your site. You can leave them or remove them if you don't feel excellent about the top quality of the websites.

2. You have to have solid brand name signals, to begin with: good brand name, excellent links, well-written press, high metrics and a lot of people searching your internet site - is mosting likely to protect you from negative SEO campaigns.

3. Your website needs to have a strong foundation and also with the necessary metrics, a device to keep track of bad deed. Playing the field above board by being straightforward in your negotiations with Google likewise can go a long way. Google created the Penguin Formula update and also Google Webmasters Device to recognize patterns that tend to control web links. It is tough for them to identify whether the site has severe concerns of its own or a rival is using negative SEO.

4. As an internet site owner, recognizing these disputes should help you beef up on your awareness of concerns challenging Negative SEO. These would certainly additionally aid maintain your enduring presence in the market and also maintain your well-deserved Google ranking.

What is Dispersed Rejection of Service (DDoS) Attack?

DDoS is an assault on a network resource by making it unavailable to its desired customers. The targets of these strikes are generally high profiled internet servers like banks, debit card companies, and root name web servers.

Lots of DDoS assaults can bring networks to their knees. Among one of the most common ones comply with.

1. Flooding the site with pointless website traffic or interaction that would certainly make the site not able to reply to legit queries. This is or else referred to as the SYN flood attack. An enemy can flood the server with TCP/CYN without recognizing the web server's CYN's action. The result is that the session table gets filled out with session inquiries making it incapable to accept genuine questions for connection until the lack of exercise timer has gone off.

ICMP flooding strike - is comparable to the CYN flood strike. The only distinction is that the assaulter disposes of a substantial number of ICMP resemble demands with a fake IP address.

3. UDP Flooding assault - This resembles the ICMP strike, except that IP packages that contain the UDP datagram are utilized versus its victims.

4. Land assault - the attacker makes use of the IP address of the sufferer as the resource as well as location. If the target is unaware of the assault, he might wind up trying to connect with it and also getting to a dead-end loophole until it has gotten to the still timeout worth.

5. Teardrop strike - this type of strike fragments and rebuilds IP packets where an attacker can transmit fragmented IP packets. These packages include overlapping piece offsets to tire the target's resources in rebuilding them.

6. Ping of Death - an ICMP variation that triggers a system to crash. The assailant sends an IP packet that contains more than the permitted 65,507 bytes of information that triggers the system to the accident.

What to do?

Some of the strategies that are used are not optimized to face the growing refinement of assaults that are seen today. Various other strategies like overprovisioning do not ensure full-blown protection from vicious larger attacks and are as well costly as a prevention approach for DDoS.

Organizations with an online presence can spend in DDoS defense. It is vital that big enterprises, government devices, as well as service suppliers among others, safeguard the honesty of their organization operations as a matter of company policy, and also as a way for market survival.

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible. The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters. Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map. It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more. This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes. As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange.

Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked. Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector. This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK). Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet. Images from Shutterstock. Advertisement Source link Read the full article

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible.

The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters.

Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map.

It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more.

This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes.

As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange.

Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector.

This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK).

Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet.

Images from Shutterstock.

Advertisement

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible.

The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters.

Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map.

It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more.

This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes.

As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector.

This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK).

Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet.

Images from Shutterstock.

Advertisement

Source link http://bit.ly/2RwkS4R

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible.

The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters.

Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map.

It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more.

This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes.

As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector.

This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK).

Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet.

Images from Shutterstock.

Advertisement

Source link http://bit.ly/2RwkS4R

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible.

The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters.

Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map.

It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more.

This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes.

As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector.

This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK).

Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet.

Images from Shutterstock.

Advertisement

Source link http://bit.ly/2RwkS4R

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible.

The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters.

Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map.

It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more.

This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes.

As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector.

This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK).

Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet.

Images from Shutterstock.

Advertisement

Source link http://bit.ly/2RwkS4R

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

Initial Exchange Offerings Restore Agility to Blockchain’s Original Fundraising Model

One of the most groundbreaking concepts to emerge from blockchain over its short lifespan has been the initial coin offering, or ICO. In this article, the author will discuss an emerging trend called “Initial Exchange Offerings” or IEOs. Reading about blockchain or cryptocurrency in any newspaper will allude to this unique type of public offering, which draws parallels with its cousin the IPO. An ICO is when a company issues blockchain tokens that it will then sell in exchange for common cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are more fungible.

The fuzzy regulatory status of ICOs and their resulting tokens complements the accessibility of blockchain and is largely the reason that the ICO works so well for fundraising. Companies which just create a smart contract are already most of the way there, and don’t need to pass through the same checkpoints as companies which opt to list publicly on major equity markets. This has also meant that the ICO market is rife with fraud, as investors lack the protection of entities such as the SEC, which ensures accountability in these matters.

Statistics provide a stark picture of this penchant for fraud, with 78% of ICOs identified as a scam according to a CoinDesk study. What of the other 22%? To begin with optimism, the numbers indicate that 15% of all ICOs went on to achieve success and had their tokens listed on an exchange. The other 7% is made up of failed projects and those that “went dark” or simply fell off the map.

It has therefore been important for the cryptocurrency market to regulate itself while authorities decide the proper course of action—and it might take a while when considering proposed regulations aren’t the same in any two places. In the meantime, self-regulation is accomplished via transparency with the people (forums), educational content that helps investors hunt down the best opportunities, volunteer community watchdogs, and by raising the bar on the minimum assets required for an ICO to be considered legitimate (with a whitepaper as the foundation). It’s still not enough.

Reinforcing Self-Regulation, Delicately

Participants in the young ICO market are getting more educated about how to discern a quality token, but 2019 will likely see regulators step in to provide a clearer picture. Even between G7 countries, the half-measures put into place are divergent, so this clarity will be much appreciated. New ICOs are still being launched but mostly in places that offer single-jurisdiction regulatory licenses such as Malta, Gibraltar, or Estonia. However, the international reach of blockchain companies will be scrutinized when universal standards for ICO-adjacent ideas land, regarding taxation, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, asset classification, and more.

This is a move in the right direction on one hand, as it signals that authorities consider blockchain to be valuable and want to present a unified structure for global small business growth. On the other hand, measures taken thus far are hurting more than helping. With tokens being considered securities by the SEC, the original effectiveness of the ICO model has been decimated, though some lawmakers are trying to change this by petitioning the SEC to create a new asset class allowing for the flexibility of blockchain. Securities listings encounter significant barriers that make it an expensive proposition most, such as fees, endless paperwork, financial audits and other due diligence processes.

As we’re also seeing in the emergent STO market, banking sector, and financial sector, blockchain infrastructure must first be built to make it easier for regulators to approve methods and processes, rather than individual projects themselves. If an ICO-launchpad platform can get a stamp of approval signifying that all projects propelled forward with it are compliant, then the dead market will be easily resuscitated.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. Introducing the IEO

IEOs, or Initial Exchange Offerings, are a new blockchain initiative that provides a transparent, compliant framework for an ICO and can “revive” the trend simply by better defining it. ICOs are unique to blockchain and can’t compare with other blockchain products like security tokens, currencies, non-fungibles, or utility coins, so a template will do much to reduce their variability. Consider that the economics and safety of a tokenized economy are enforced by individual programmers of unpredictable skill, and it’s no wonder why so many smart contracts get hacked.

Instead of hiring developer talent and bootstrapping, an ambitious blockchain startup can instead delegate the fundraising process to a trustworthy exchange. The exchange will complete all due diligence with its greater resources and experience, and can reduce the instances of phishing, DDoS, and other malicious attacks that target small operations more effectively. Moreover, the dissemination of tokens, collection of funds, and financial audits can take place with exchange resources and are backed by trained teams in the financial sector.

This benefits investors, who can correctly assume that an ICO will be safe based on its completion of the IEO. It aids the project as well, which can piggyback off the exchange’s userbase and volume, but also the exchange, which advances these metrics by way of hosting new tokens. Already several jurisdictions are pursuing this new methodology, but the least surprising is China, which enforced a blanket ban on ICOs in 2017. CoinBene, a Chinese exchange, is supervising the first IEO of Temco—a promising supply chain and logistics platform–which can also boast its status as the first ever ICO launched via Bitcoin’s blockchain and not Ethereum’s thanks to RootStock (RSK).

Investors in Temco and other IEOs on CoinBene can consider these differently than they would other token opportunities, given that CoinBene has injected true accountability into the process. With IEOs on deck to help the nascent market mature, it will become more apparent that the leisurely pace of regulators is simply lending more time to blockchain for it to fix its own problems—and that’s possibly the most optimistic idea yet.

Images from Shutterstock.

Advertisement

Source link http://bit.ly/2RwkS4R