Massively more people invested in Ethereum than the type of scam projects that were most likely to belly flop.
As the study I referenced states, the vast majority of token sale investments were small. This points to a market where people acted rationally, in risking only small amounts on speculative investments, and makes it more likely that a typical token sale investor would spread their investments across a large number of projects.
It therefore stands to reason that there was significant overlap across token sale portfolios on larger and better known sales like Ethereum's.
>>VCs can fire the CEO/founder of the startup. You can't fire anyone and have zero control as an ICO investor.
Not every one can be a VC. Every one could invest in Bitcoin in 2009, and Ethereum in 2015.
The code for these projects is open, with no permissioning on who can release a client or run one. Moreover any one can fork the chain.
It's an entirely different governance mechanism than that of traditional shareholder controlled startups, and the experiment should not have been stifled by SEC regimentation, under the false call of "investor protection" made by those employed by regulatory agencies and venture capital funds who had a clear financial conflict of interest in benefiting from centralized control over investment activity.
As the study I referenced states, the vast majority of token sale investments were small. This points to a market where people acted rationally, in risking only small amounts on speculative investments, and makes it more likely that a typical token sale investor would spread their investments across a large number of projects.
It therefore stands to reason that there was significant overlap across token sale portfolios on larger and better known sales like Ethereum's.
>>VCs can fire the CEO/founder of the startup. You can't fire anyone and have zero control as an ICO investor.
Not every one can be a VC. Every one could invest in Bitcoin in 2009, and Ethereum in 2015.
The code for these projects is open, with no permissioning on who can release a client or run one. Moreover any one can fork the chain.
It's an entirely different governance mechanism than that of traditional shareholder controlled startups, and the experiment should not have been stifled by SEC regimentation, under the false call of "investor protection" made by those employed by regulatory agencies and venture capital funds who had a clear financial conflict of interest in benefiting from centralized control over investment activity.