Terence Zimwara
Initial coin offering (ICO), the buzzword in 2017 and early 2018,
is a fundraising initiative similar to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) by a
company listing on a stock market for the first time. The hype and success of
early cryptos kick-started an unusually high request for funding the creation
of more crypto-currencies and tokens.
Cryptos are touted as the next big thing after the internet
itself and many do not want to be left behind hence the funding requests. So
far such funding requests have manifested in the form of ICOs, which raised
billions of dollars attracting the interest of global regulators.
Indeed a good number of ICOs were issued during the period
of explosive growth in cryptos values. However, prices have since receded and
most tokens now trade at well below ICO issuing prices thus severely impairing
the value investment portfolios. In other words, if holders of these investment
tokens decided to sell they would incur huge losses.
According to a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
consultation paper, evidence suggests there are particularly significant risks
of fraudulent activity associated with ICOs. The FCA is a UK based regulator
and consumer protection body.
FCA’s consultation paper quotes a study which ‘showed’ that
approximately 25% of ICOs could be fraudulent, whilst other estimates suggest
that 46% of ICOs issued in 2017 have already ‘failed.’
The paper adds, “In many cases, investors do not receive
what they were promised and issuers do not deliver the intended product or
service. This is in part driven by a conflict of interest for the issuer of the
ICO, who may seek to maximise the capital being raised by failing to be
transparent, not providing sufficient details of the risks, and misleading
consumers. In some cases, large sums of money have been raised for projects
without appropriate plans or capability for delivery,” concludes the UK
watchdog.
From this perspective, it is easy to understand why some
view newly created cryptos with suspicion or just as scams. Nevertheless, it is
also fair to say that some ICOs have been successful; the funds raised have
helped to create outstanding crypto innovations even though token/coin prices
remain well below launch levels.
Unfortunately, the narrative has been focused mainly on the
former; the entire market needs to be regulated and fast before more investors
lose. Conventional financial regulatory bodies want to take the lead in
regulating this market even as they do not fully understand the concept of
crypto-currency. The result has been these outlandish proposals which are
essentially aimed at constraining the growth of this market. Predictably the
response by crypto businesses has been that of defiance.
It is important to remember that regulators lack the
technology and the know-how to fully control this nascent industry. They will
have to rely on the voluntary cooperation by crypto players. If crypto
entrepreneurs are unwilling to subject themselves to regulations, there are a
few options on the table which regulators can use and these are not 100%
effective.
For example, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) banned banks
from dealing with crypto exchanges and at the same time it issued advisories
warning members of the public against dealing with crypto-currencies. One
crypto exchange, Golix was forced to stop operations and even had an automated
teller machine seized.
Nevertheless, that has only forced people who have already
embraced crypto-currencies to go underground. Bitcoin trading is going strong despite
the ban and the country’s dithering economy—something that can be traced back
to RBZ actions—is only helping make the case for wider adoption of cryptos. The
verdict seems to be that the RBZ is hardly a suitable candidate to call out
crypto-currencies as risky financial assets when its own currency is in
shambles!
Zimbabweans are and can still participate in ICOs or
whatever fund raising initiative without worrying much about the RBZ. That it
pretty much the case in many jurisdictions, regulatory authorities do not have
absolute control over ICOs and peer to peer trading.
Sadly however, such haggling between over enthusiastic
regulators and sometimes recalcitrant crypto businesses plays a part in slowing
the adoption momentum. Fence sitters are easily swayed by the media reports of
ICO scams and confidence in cryptos is further shattered when governments skirmish
with crypto businesses.
When Golix was forced to shut down in Zimbabwe, it
approached the courts for relief and indeed a judgment was handed down setting
aside RBZ’s decree.In spite of that, banks still refuse to deal with exchanges
and reports suggest clients may have lost funds.
At the very least, Zimbabweans will decide to wait until the
dust has settled before embracing cryptos. In worst case scenarios, potential
adopters will avoid cryptos completely.
Therefore a middle ground has to be found to enhance
confidence in cryptos. Regulators have to acknowledge that they cannot always
force regulations if crypto players are unwilling to observe such. Equally
crypto players need to acknowledge that without the ‘seal of approval’ from
regulatory bodies, confidence in cryptos will remain low and adoption will
remain static.
That maybe the direction needed at this particular moment.
Already Facebook seems to be attempting this in its engagement with US
government officials. The social media giant knows it can still go ahead with
its Libra project without ‘approval’ but it wants this endorsement as this will
help bring confidence to the coin. Similarly, a tech start-up Denk had its ICO
approved by the SEC and this endorsement will go a long way in attracting
investors who are otherwise wary of unregulated ICOs.
No comments:
Post a Comment