> it would also change the composition of the community from people who agree with our core ideals to a group of people who want to see a return on their investment.
Yes, it would. Good read, I like the overall reasoning. I can think of some use cases where an OB token could make sense but I would like to learn more about OB first.
As I understand it, they're a new way of raising money (as Fred Wilson put it, "disrupting Silicon Valley").
Normally, you sell of portions of your company to investors in exchange for funding. You get money to run your business, and they get a stake that could be worth 10x in a few years time if you get acquired or go public.
With an ICO, you can't really sell off portions of your company, because you'll run afoul of securities laws (I'm speaking of the U.S. here). So what do you sell? Typically, companies sell tokens that will be users' way of interacting with their future product. So if you're a decentralized file storage company, the ICO token is what users will eventually use to buy storage.
What's exciting for some is that coin offerings provide a way to fund interesting and meaningful companies even if they are outside of the "venture capital loop". In some ways, ICOs are more democratic and egalitarian than any funding system currently available.
Mind you, I don't think ICOs provide any new value whatsoever, and I don't really see the point, but you asked for an explanation and there it is.
The ones that are done properly are some form of "compensation for operating the dapp". For example: Augur Rep is for adjudicating events, for which you receive a portion of the fees. Somewhere along the way ICOs became a money grab.
Yes, it would. Good read, I like the overall reasoning. I can think of some use cases where an OB token could make sense but I would like to learn more about OB first.