Cryptocurrency startups have found a number of ways for raising capital. ICOs was the first method to be invented. However, ICOs have ended up being shrouded by lots of scams due to lack of proper regulations.

IPOs and STOs were among the first methods to be invented alongside ICOs. However, these two (STOs and IPOs) have not become as successful as the ICOs due to the strict regulations set by the regulatory authorities like SEC.

The ease with which ICOs are operated attracts a lot of investors and inventors were forced to come up with a way to make the ICOs scam proof. They had to come up with a formula to make the ICOs crowdfunding possible, even in countries like China, where ICOs are banned due to lack of proper regulation formulas. This is basically what led to the invention of IEOs.

IEOs employ the same working principles as the ICOs and thus maintains the simplicity with which they are carried out. However, by using the crypto exchange Launchpad, they make them safer compared to the ICOs since the development team has to meet a number of requirements for their project’s token sale to be listed on the exchange. Therefore, the issue of scams in IEOs is greatly minimized since they would keep the reputation of the crypto exchanges at risk.

Nevertheless, although the IEOs make it more interesting and safer for investors, the investors still carry the bulk of the risks; the project may pick or fail. The fact that a project gets funded through a crypto exchange Launchpad does not mean that the project will automatically become a success.

However, we cannot refute the fact that projects that have done their crowdfunding through IEOs have ended up hitting their target within a very short timeframe compared to the ICOs which take months and at times even end up missing their targets. We have seen projects hit their targets even in minutes.

In IEOs, the target investors seem to be guaranteed. The exchange users, of course, trust their exchange platform and tend to take up every opportunity that comes up on the exchange. Therefore, if the exchange lists an IEO, the users will be fighting to invest in it. But the question is; how sure are the investors that the project they invest in will succeed and become profitable.

IEOs are still not very reassuring just like the ICOs. Investors can only hope and pray that the project team does its best to ensure that the project picks to give the tokens more value than the value at which they purchased it. In a way, they cannot be compared to the STOs, where the investor gets a share of ownership of the project.

At the moment IEOs seem to be carrying the day and developers can depend on them for raising funds. However, for investors, the rise and fall of ICOs should serve as a lesson. Investors should always ensure due diligence whenever they are choosing which project to invest in.

It is true that scamming is greatly reduced in IEOs, but even genuine projects flop if they were not well planned. Investors should do thorough research about the projects before investing their money.

What does the future hold for IEOs?

One thing is for sure; cryptocurrency exchanges are here to stay. In an actual sense, we should expect to see more and more exchanges entering the market.

Blockchain and cryptocurrency startups have gathered momentum and the easiest way for them to raise capital is by depending on the general public for funding. The banking sector is too costly for them. Blockchain startups cannot afford bank loans since the projects may not thrive as anticipated since they wholly depend on how the general public receives them.

From an expert view, IEOs will most definitely outstay the ICOs. Also, more countries are set to embrace IEOs compared to ICOs since they are offered through exchanges which are easily regulated by the regulatory bodies.

IEOs, therefore, have no problem with complying with the set laws and governments won’t have to come up with new rules to regulate them.

It is always important to factor in the cost before undertaking any project. Otherwise, you may get stuck along the way due to a lack of funds. A clear picture of the cost will enable you to financially plan in advance to ensure that you have enough funds to run all the necessary activities for the success of any project.

For a STO, the cost depends on a number of things throughout the various phases of the STO, which include:

  1. The concept phase: this includes the development and drafting of the project concept and it entails the selection of the token standard and the whitepaper.
  • Choosing the token standards

For the token standard selection, you will need to choose the best standard to build your token on. The most commonly used standards are the ECR20 though there is a large list of standards ranging from the ERC20 to ERC1450.

The selection of the right token standard can be easy with the right standard consultant. Ideally, it is better to engage a consultancy that provides the full suite of STO services including legal instead of looking for a consultant for every task.

  • Whitepaper

As the founder or owner of the STO, you could have the best description of the project, but you require a professional to draft the whitepaper nicely and professionally.

  1. The development phase: This is the bulk of the entire project. It includes the creation of the smart contract, deploying the smart contract, and creation of an investor panel.

You will need to hire a development team depending on qualifications. Most importantly, you will need UI and UX experts, blockchain engineer (s) and product experts. All these professionals come at different costs depending on their level of expertise.

At this phase, it is wise to go for the highest experienced individuals to ensure that you get the best. You can always negotiate your way out with the professionals to charge you fairly instead of going for novices who may compromise your entire project.

  1. Security and legal audit: You will have to test your blockchain project for bugs before launching the STO. The testing requires an internal auditor and a third-party auditor who can also be a community auditor.

Above the security, you should also ensure that the tokens are checked for compatibility with the available crypto exchange platforms.

Most people ignore this phase due to the added cost, but it is an important phase which would prevent future problems with your STO.

  1. Legal and marketing: Contrary to ICOs, STOs have rules that they must adhere to. Therefore, you will require a good legal team to follow up on the issue of KYC, AML in addition to the other rules and regulations touching on STOs.

You also need to market the STO so as to attract as many investors as possible. However, you will need to involve the legal team to ensure that marketing is GDPR compliant. Most importantly, you will require website developers to create an attractive landing page.

You will also have to explore all the marketing avenues, especially through digital platforms. However, you have to strike a balance to avoid overspending on marketing.

 

Localcoin, a crypto exchange, has been receiving a backlash from the online community as well as investors for possible whitepaper plagiarism.

It is so embarrassing for a company or startup to be caught up in a plagiarism scandal! It throws the entire ICO project into jeopardy. It becomes extremely difficult to convince investors that it was just a mistake since a whitepaper should be a very original document explaining a project that should be original. Otherwise, any similarity in whitepapers shows that the project could also be a “Copy Paste” or a scam. It becomes extremely hard for investors to believe that the project is real.

This is what is happening to Localcoin exchange. People, especially on Bitcointalk, have concluded that the whole project is a scam.

Localcoin blames the whitepaper author, whom they say they had outsourced, for the misfortunes but it will be hard to persuade investors into buying into this narrative. The back still stopped with them even if they outsourced the author. An author can only write depending on the information he/she gets from the project developers. And further still, the development team out to have gone through the whitepaper before publishing it.

But what could have made the author make such grave mistakes? Was it deliberate?

From a closer look at things, the author could have made deliberate plagiarism possibly from a misunderstanding with the development team. There are allegations that Localcoin owes marketers over $15,000 and this could be the reason behind the plagiarism.

However, all in all, it shows that the team behind the whole project isn’t serious.