Where’s the best place to do an ICO? Contrary to popular press on the subject, one team of researchers actually believes that the answer is the United States.
Knowing this, it is logical to wonder: what metrics did they use to come to this decision and did their metrics include anything related to existing regulation of the space?
Firstly, this particular team was affiliated with a conference called “the Crypto Finance Conference.”
Secondly, they conducted the bulk of their research using public data on what were deemed the most successful 100 Initial Coin Offerings, based on total money collected.
From here, they took the money collected by these ICOs and combined it with where each was conducted to determine what countries could be the most favorable to do ICOs in.
In knowing the apparent failure of their research to take into account any sort of existing regulation that restricts how ICOs are run, it can be said that this research is not at all without problems.
Inside of this failure also lies an apparent disregard for the possibility of future laws and their effects on the success and the frequency of ICOs.
If the research were to be re-branded under a heading akin to where the most successful ICOs have taken place, then the findings would seem to have more credence than they currently do.
An even deeper and more serious question that comes to light from all of this is: why is such research being taken by popular industry news outlets as if were fact?
To do so is arguably to seriously mislead the average Crypto investor.
Even Blockchain networks use peer review and proper, accepted research practices to prove what they are doing has some sort of viability.
If any product in the space is not backed by some sort of peer reviewed piece of research, then it is common practice to term it a scam or simply, unworthy of investment.
Since the volume of Initial Coin Offerings has already reached its all-time high in the first few months of this year according to Cointelegraph, one question becomes even more important for us to consider.
Why don’t we consider discounting Blockchain related research that fails to contain a well-rounded, scholarly backed set of conclusions?
By: BGN Editorial Staff