Blockchain
Did you fall for it? 13 ICO scams that fooled thousands
Published
3 Wochen agoon
By
Using blockchain technology, initial coin offerings have become an alternative means of acquiring funding for business projects using the new, evolving digital financial market for tokens. In contrast to initial public offerings, which are governed by strict legal regulations, ICOs require only a white paper and some interesting features, such as a lack of barrier to entry, a scope for exponential growth, absence of geographical barriers and easy validation.
Hence, it may not be surprising that the ICO market experienced extraordinary growth recently. Research shows that from January 2016 to August 2019, ICOs raised nearly $13 billion worldwide.
Despite the appealing benefits of ICOs, investors interested in them as an alternative investment face some dramatic risks. In this regard, a 2018 report from Satis Research Group investigated approximately 1,500 ICOs. From the sample, 78% projects were identified as scams, collectively valued at $1.3 billion.
Related: Crypto Crimes Rated: From the Twitter Hackers to Not Your Keyser, Not Your Coins
Together with my colleagues Niranjan Sapkota and Josephine Dufitinema, I conducted a study that was aimed to explore and answer the following question: What are the various types of scams in the ICO market, and what is the expected monetary loss of the average ICO scam? To investigate this issue, we employed web-scraping and created an intensive data library covering all ICOs launched from August 2014 to December 2019. Our unique, hand-collected data set covered 5,036 ICOs.
We found data of the funds raised for 1,014 ICOs, 576 of which turned out to be scams, totaling $10.12 billion in cumulative losses. The largest loss via scam is the so-called “Petro-scam,” from which investors lost a total $735 million.
ICO scam categories
Dead, fake, or both
We retrieved ICOs that had been categorized as “listed” by dead-project aggregators DeadCoins and Coinopsy, and analyzed them to identify 13 different ways that investors can be fooled by scammers. If a Bitcointalk forum member identified the ICO with a fake team, fake project, fake wallet, fake social media or fake trading, we categorized the ICO as “fake.”
The classic exit scam
If an ICO failed to pay out promoters who were promised financial rewards (mostly in the form of tokens) for PR activities such as promoting the project on forums, Telegram channels, messengers, translating and localizing documents, posting on social media or on blogs, we categorized it as a “bounty scam.” If the developers and promoters who collected funds for an ICO suddenly disappeared while leaving investors without any information, we categorized those ICOs as an “exit scam.”
Compound scams and exploding airdrops
We observed many ICO scam accusations in which the same group of developers was actively conducting scams in other projects. This type of scam is categorized as “previous scammers” in our study. Next, we defined “airdrop scam” for incidents in which the scammers stole private keys from users. This can happen if scammers create a booby trap and users, expecting to receive free tokens, click on the links, thereby giving away their private information and ultimately losing their coins.
Exchange scams and the copy-pasters
Furthermore, developers intending to deceive investors seemed to prefer launching their ICO at a fraudulent exchange. This type of scam is categorized as an “exchange scam.” We also observed that copying the white paper of a promising ICO and launching it using a similar or different name is another deceptive tactic used among scammers. This type of scam is categorized as “white paper plagiarism scam.” In this regard, we have observed that users are fortunately getting familiar with this type of scam and now report it in the Bitcointalk forum.
The pump and dump
“Pump and dump” is another strategy used by scammers, but it is not always immediately detectable at the beginning of an ICO. In this type of scam, investors and traders rush to buy the token at an early phase when the price is still low, and some even buy at a high price in fear of missing out on an opportunity to make an easy profit. Once the scammers complete the sales, the price drops abruptly and dramatically.
Crypto Ponzi schemes
A “Ponzi scam” is another category of scam observed. This type of scam typically requires that the victims invest in some product(s) or service(s) associated with the ICO and are promised returns at a later stage.
URL scams and phishing trips
We also observed a new tactic of scamming investors that involves the launch websites that are similar in name and design to existing projects. Naive investors that are unaware of the original websites may be fooled by these sites and lose their coins. This category of scam is identified as a “website scam” in our study.
We know what you did last night
We also observed what we describe as a “porn scam,” which seems to be increasingly popular among scammers, whereby an ICO pretends to offer premium access to its porn site (and/or products). Scammers may be employing this type of scam because users are less likely to report it due to pornography being prohibited or looked down upon in many countries.
Market manipulation and pre-mines
Next, we defined another form of fraudulent ICO as a “pre-mine scam,” referring to tokens being shared among developers and/or promoters after the final token sale took place instead of burning the unsold tokens as is appropriate in such cases. This scams investors simply because a higher token circulation supply implies a lower token price. Furthermore, the token’s market can be manipulated if developers retain a large portion of the tokens from the pre-mining phase. Interestingly, another recent study also found that pre-mining activity is linked to cryptocurrency defaults.
So what’s the biggest ICO scam?
Our screening showed evidence that the “phishing and fraud” type of scam is the most common, whereby users receive spam emails, suspicious links and popups, questions for personal and financial details, errors on withdrawals, pending withdrawals, balances disappearing from wallets, and other dysfunctional operations.
Finally, using our plug-in estimator, we found that if an ICO business project turns out to be a scam, we can expect an estimated $54.1 million in losses, which is three times the general sample average of $17.58 million.
Summing up, due to a lack of regulation, developers and/or promoters can employ more than a dozen tactics to fool investors. The money involved in this new, emerging market is overwhelming. We argue that our findings have significant implications, including the need for ICO market regulations from governments and regulatory agencies to protect investors from severe losses.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Klaus Grobys is a docent in financial economics at the University of Jyväskyla and an assistant professor of finance at the University of Vaasa. Grobys is also affiliated with the research platform InnoLab at the University of Vaasa. His recent studies investigate the opportunities and risks associated with new innovative digital financial markets. His recent research was, among others, covered by U.S. business magazine Forbes.
You may like
-
Adoption, scams and regulator FUD: 2020’s biggest crypto disappointments
-
Tierion to Repay ICO Investors Up to $25M in SEC Settlement
-
3 reasons why XRP price can continue to fall after a 63% crash in four days
-
SEC scuppers ShipChain’s $27M ICO and fines the firm its last $2M
-
Tron asks NY judge to turf ICO suit from Binance bag holders
-
DJ Khaled and Floyd Mayweather promoted his 2017 ICO; Now, he faces a year behind bars
Blockchain
Bringing carbon emissions reporting into the new age via blockchain
Published
31 Minuten agoon
Dezember 29, 2020By
Blockchain for supply chain management is one of the most practical business applications for large, multi-party sectors seeking trust and transparency across daily operations. As such, the mining and metals sector has now started to leverage blockchain technology to effectively track carbon emissions across complex, global supply chains.
This month, the World Economic Forum launched a proof-of-concept to trace carbon emissions across the supply chains of seven mining and metals firms. Known as the Mining and Metals Blockchain Initiative, or MMBI, this is a collaboration between the WEF and industry companies including Anglo American, Antofagasta Minerals, Eurasian Resources Group, Glencore, Klöckner & Co., Minsur, and Tata Steel.
Jörgen Sandström, head of the WEF’s Mining and Metals Industry, told Cointelegraph that the distributed nature of blockchain technology makes it the perfect solution for companies within the sector looking to trace carbon emissions:
“Forward-thinking organizations in the mining and metals space are starting to understand the disruptive potential of blockchain to solve pain points, while also recognizing that the industry-wide collaboration around blockchain is necessary.”
According to Sandström, many blockchain projects intended to support responsible sourcing have been bilateral, resulting in a fractured system. However, this new initiative from the WEF is driven entirely by the mining and metals industry and aims to demonstrate blockchain’s full potential to track carbon emissions across the entire value chain.
While vast, the current proof-of-concept is focused on tracing carbon emissions in the copper value chain, Sandström shared. He also explained that a private blockchain network powered by Dutch blockchain development company Kryha is being leveraged to track greenhouse gas emissions from the mine to the smelter and all the way to the original equipment manufacturer. Sandström mentioned that the platform’s vision is to create a carbon emissions blueprint for all essential metals, demonstrating mine-to-market-and-back via recycling.
To put things in perspective, according to a recent report from McKinsey & Company, mining is currently responsible for 4% to 7% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. The document states that Scope 1 and Scope 2 CO2 emissions from the sector (those incurred through mining operations and power consumption) amount to 1%, while fugitive-methane emissions from coal mining are estimated at 3% to 6%. Additionally, 28% of global emissions is considered Scope 3, or indirect emissions, including the combustion of coal.
Unfortunately, the mining industry has been slow to meet emission-reduction goals. The document notes that current targets published by mining companies range from 0% to 30% by 2030 — well below the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement. Moreover, the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated the sector’s unwillingness to change. A blog post from Big Four firm Ernest & Young shows that decarbonization and a green agenda will be one of the biggest business opportunities for mining and metals companies in 2021, as these have become prominent issues in the wake of the pandemic. Sandström added:
“The industry needs to respond to the increasing demands of minerals and materials while responding to increasing demands by consumers, shareholders and regulators for a higher degree of sustainability and traceability of the products.”
Why blockchain?
While it’s clear that the mining and metals industry needs to reduce carbon emissions to meet sustainability standards and other goals, blockchain is arguably a solution that can deliver just that in comparison to other technologies.
This concept was outlined in detail in an NS Energy op-ed written by Joan Collell, a business strategy leader and the chief commercial officer at FlexiDAO, an energy technology software provider. He explained that Scope 1, 2 and 3 emission supply chains must all be measured accurately, requiring a high level of integration and coordination between multiple supply chain networks. He added:
“Different entities have to share the necessary data for the sustainability certification of products and to guarantee their traceability. This is an essential step, since everything that can be quantified is no longer a risk, but it becomes a management problem.”
According to Collel, data sharing has two main purposes: to provide transparency and traceability. Meanwhile, the main feature of a blockchain network is to provide transparency and traceability across multiple participants. On this, Collel noted: “The distributed ledger of blockchain can register in real time the consumption data of different entities across different locations and calculate the carbon intensity of that consumption.”
Collel also noted that a digital certificate outlining the amount of energy transferred can then be produced, showing exactly where and when emissions were produced. Ultimately, blockchain can provide trust, traceability and auditability across mining and metals supply chains, thus helping reduce carbon emissions.
Data challenges may hamper productivity
While blockchain may appear as the ideal solution for tracing carbon emissions across mining and metals supply chains, data challenges must be taken into consideration.
Sal Ternullo, co-lead for U.S. Cryptoasset Services at KPMG, told Cointelegraph that capturing data cryptographically across the entire value chain will indeed transform the ability to accurately measure the carbon intensity of different metals. “It’s all about the accuracy of source, the resulting data and the intrinsic value that can be verified end to end,” he said. However, Ternullo pointed out that data capture and validation are the hardest parts of this equation:
“Where, when, how (source-cadence-process) are issues that organizations are still grappling with. There are a number of blockchain protocols and solutions that can be configured to meet this use case but the challenge of data capture and validation is often not considered to the extent that it should be.”
According to Ternullo, the sector’s lack of clear standards on how emissions should be tracked further compounds these challenges. He mentioned that while some organizations have doubled down on the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board’s capture and reporting standard, there are several other standards that must be evaluated before an organization can proceed with automation, technology and analytical components that would make these processes transparent to both shareholders and consumers.
To his point, Sandström mentioned that the current proof-of-concept focused on tracing carbon emissions in the copper value chain demonstrates that participants can collaborate and test practical solutions to sustainability issues that cannot be resolved by individual companies. At the same time, Sandström stated that the WEF is sensitive to how data is treated and shared: “Having an industry approach enables us to focus on practical and finding viable ways to deliver on our vision.”
An industry approach is also helpful, with Ternullo explaining that an organization’s operating models for culture and technology must be aligned to ensure success. This is the case with all enterprise blockchain projects that require data sharing and new ways of collaboration, which may very well be easier to overcome when performed from an industry perspective.
Blockchain
The new ‘Bank of England’ is ‘no bank at all’
Published
1 Stunde agoon
Dezember 29, 2020By
As one of the first countries to industrialize in the 1760s, Britain’s manufacturing revolution instigated one of the greatest practical and ubiquitous changes in human history. But even more extraordinary than the cultural shift itself, is the fact that Britain’s industrialization remained way ahead of potential competition for decades. Only in the early 1900s did historians come to grips with the issues of causation. Max Weber’s pithy answer, “the Protestant work ethic,” pointed to Puritan seriousness, diligence, fiscal prudence and hard work. Others point to the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 as a foundation for financial stability.
In contrast, continental Europe lurched from one national debt crisis to another, then threw itself headlong into the Napoleonic wars. Unsurprisingly, it was not until after 1815 that industrialization took place on the European mainland, where it was spearheaded by the new country of Belgium.
250 years later, another revolution has begun with the launch of Bitcoin (BTC), but this one is more commercial in nature than industrial. Though the full impact has yet to play out, the parallels between these two historical events are already striking.
Bitcoin may not match the obviousness of industrialization, but the underlying pragmatics touch on the very foundations of the non-barter economy. Like the establishment of the Bank of England, the creation of the cryptocurrency infrastructure has been prompted by ongoing and worsening threats to financial stability: systemic fault-lines created by macroeconomic challenges stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em…right?
Where a central bank once anchored financial enlightenment, it now plays the role of antagonist. For those who could “connect the dots” in 2008, there was the realization that central banks no longer existed as guardians and protectors of national currencies, but rather as tools for creating politicized market distortions, abandoning their duty to preserve wealth in favor of creating the conditions for limitless, cheap government debt. While many of the underlying intentions were benign, the process inherently worked to punish savers and reward reckless debt.
Meanwhile, it has steadily taken time for the potential of digital assets to reach their potential and approach something like critical mass, though thankfully full acceptance shouldn’t take as long as Britain’s industrial revolution. Over the past 12 years, cryptocurrencies have moved from unknown to novel to significant, growing interest. As a result, profound changes are underway, affecting the mechanics by which investors, the investment industry, wealth managers and even the commercial banking sector are engaging with cryptocurrencies.
This interest has accelerated as we enter into a period of deep economic uncertainty and growing awareness that structural soundness is shifting away from traditional investment options. Not only that, this growing financial innovation and public interest has largely occurred outside of the central banks’ control, if not outright antagonism led by the banks’ regulatory arms in government.
Now, many central banks are trying to join a game they’ve tried almost every way of beating, with digital currencies that adopt the glowing sheen of crypto innovation, but which also eschew the underlying innovations and philosophy that made those innovations so popular to begin with.
Follow or get out of the way
The popularity of cryptocurrency has largely been due to its protean fungibility — it has been whatever the independent financial community has needed it to be, from digital currency to speculative financial instruments to smart contracts that can power smart financial technology.
However hard central banks might try to co-opt the hype of cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency succeeding will mark the fundamental end of critical aspects of the central banking monopoly by offering a more competitive vehicle for facilitating commercial transactions and providing a more stable medium to store monetized assets. Cryptocurrencies actually offer real returns on “cash” deposits, something that the fiat banking system has long since abandoned. Most of all, cryptocurrencies reveal the fictitious nature of fiat currencies as a principle.
Cryptocurrencies as an ecosystem will increasingly constrain, redirect and set the parameters for government macroeconomic policies. Certainly, sound alternatives to fiat currencies will drive the latter to the periphery of commercial life, concomitantly reducing the number of tools the nation-state has at its disposal to regulate or respond to changing economic conditions. Above all, this means that government financial engagement can no longer be a rule unto itself. It will have to engage by the same principles as everyone else. A level playing field here has dramatic implications.
Against the backdrop of the essential limits of fiat currencies, current geo- and macroeconomic policies and a new emerging world order, cryptocurrencies offer vast potential as an efficiency facilitating frictionless commerce and investment, a medium of stability against uncertainty and inflation, increased security in value transfer and wealth management, optimum autonomy in an increasingly intrusive climate, and “cash” asset preservation/growth in a world of negative interest rates.
The edifice that supports the concept of a “global reserve currency” is also weakening. This will reduce political influence over global finance, as well as nations’ abilities to run a long-term balance of payments deficits, current account deficits and borrow at little or no interest. Indeed, given current trends, changes in trading mechanics may speedily evolve to the point that such “reserve currencies” no longer have a function at all. And cryptocurrency success will hasten the end of the U.S. dollar monopoly in global commerce.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
James Gillingham is the CEO and a co-founder of Finxflo. James is engaged in developing and implementing strategic plans and company policies, maintaining an open dialogue with stakeholders and driving organizational success. He is an expert in managing and executing high-level strategic objectives with more than 13 years’ experience in building, developing and expanding multinational organizations. His deep knowledge of financial markets, digital currencies and fintech has played a pivotal role in his success to date.
Blockchain
Why you wouldn’t eat chicken nuggets, and why you shouldn’t trust Big Data
Published
11 Stunden agoon
Dezember 29, 2020By
Just like you might think twice about eating chicken nuggets once you see how they are made, you’d likely hesitate about volunteering your personal information once you see how it is used and monetized.
Freedom has become one of the world’s most commoditized assets — and over the years, the internet has eroded it.
We live in a world where we’re confronted with 5,000 words of terms and conditions when buying sneakers. Crucial details about what companies do with our data is buried in masses of legalese — prompting most of us to click “I agree” without thinking of the consequences.
In other cases, companies are unacceptably opaque about how our data is used. This is a big problem when businesses are offering their services for “free”… provided we can give our email address, phone number and a few other details.
A scene from the recent sci-fi series Maniac perfectly illustrated where the world is heading. A character is given a choice — they can either pay for their subway ticket or get it for free in exchange for some personal information. As you’d guess, they bluntly chose the latter.
That’s basically what we’re doing every day — giving our data to corporations, big and small, and sacrificing our privacy and freedom in the process.
It’s gotten so bad that individual states have had to step in with rules and regulations designed to protect the public, many of whom are unaware of what they’re signing up for when they tick a seemingly innocuous box on a website.
And it’s also telling that tech giants are worried about the taps being turned off. When Apple unveiled a new feature that would enable users to opt out of having their activity tracked across apps and websites, Facebook launched a ferocious PR campaign against the measures. The social network said it was speaking out to protect the small businesses who rely on its platform for targeted advertising. Cynics among you will see it as a brazen attempt to protect profits by a company charged with some of the most insidious and influential data mining in history.
Pandora’s box has been opened
The tide is beginning to change — because we’ve opened Pandora’s box — and the world is starting to have long-overdue discussions about the privacy we’re entitled to online.
For more than 10 years now, we’ve experienced abundant financial freedom thanks to Bitcoin (BTC) and its rivals… but there’s still a long way to go in other parts of our society.
Last week, I went to the shop and spontaneously bought some moisturizer, and when I got home, I did a Google search to learn more about the product. For the next seven days, I was bombarded with moisturizer ads on Facebook.
Just like our health, our well-being and our careers, freedom is an inner personal responsibility that we need to monitor, maintain and protect — especially in the digital realm, where it can all too easily be sold in exchange for access to free services.
To feel free and safe in our homes, we rely on the privacy of our ownership, and the trustworthiness of our friends and neighbors. Government laws and housing association rules underwrite this. But we also entrust our financial privacy to institutions — in the expectation that they will be held accountable by regulators and central banks — and the whole reason Bitcoin launched in 2009 was because our expectations weren’t being met.
Why blockchain is the answer
Every modern proof-of-stake blockchain tackles the problems surrounding digital privacy and trust in a unique way, and in these vibrant communities, decentralized governance helps to ensure that standards are upheld, with slashing mechanisms serving as a deterrent to those who are tempted to work against a network’s best interests.
With PoS blockchains, users benefit from informed consent. They’re kept in the loop about proposals for improving and expanding the network and ideas for new services. Digital social consensus means they can read debates about the pros and cons associated with each proposal, come to their own conclusions, and cast a vote accordingly. Can you honestly imagine a tech giant doing this?
Privacy issues can be solved by generating abstract network addresses that are not permanently tied to public keys — or through the use of special proxy smart contracts, which are similar to VPN and Tor but on top of the blockchain.
Can blockchain technology solve some of the most pressing privacy and trust issues seen in a generation? I believe so. Once the technology is there and transactions are cheap enough, consumers will be able to make a choice — share their private data or pay a small fee instead.
We need to learn harsh lessons from the past and make the right decision this time around. I remember the early days of email when spam messages were a big issue. A small sender’s fee was considered as a way of circumventing this problem — but in the end, the likes of Gmail came out on top. Now, there’s no monetary cost… we just pay the small price of Google hosting all of our electronic correspondence.
Proof-of-stake blockchains can deliver cheap transactions, decentralized governance that regulates the network’s rules, maximum privacy, and no data collection policies. Each story starts with trust — and in the blockchain world, the trust starts with the network.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Vladimir Maslyakov is the CTO of Thekey.space and former CTO of Exante.eu. He developed several distributed financial systems as an IT architect. He has been a blockchain enthusiast since 2012 and is an initial member of the Free TON community.
Hackers Exploit DeFi Project Cover Protocol, COVER Token Price Tanks 90%
Dormant Bitcoin on the move as price volatility rises
eToro Said to Be in Talks With Goldman About Possible $5B IPO: Report
Trending
-
Bitcoin4 Monaten agoBitcoin and cryptocurrency are no hedge for inflation
-
Regulation3 Monaten agoCongress weighs crypto payments and fintech lending in hearing today
-
Bitcoin3 Monaten agoMicroStrategy CEO seems to embrace Bitcoin maximalism
-
Altcoin3 Monaten agoDfinance: Layer 2 Blockchain Network
-
Cryptocurrency4 Monaten agoBank of England is Planing to Adopt Digital Currency
-
Monero9 Monaten agoSophisticated Mining Botnet Identified After 2 Years
-
Market4 Monaten ago
The request could not be satisfied
-
Blockchain3 Monaten agoThe US is number one…in blockchain patents

