What was really wrong with Confido.

HBO

On November 2017 I invested 2 eth in Confido.io. Generally, it was fun to watch the price growing very fast. Honestly, that was one of my first ICOs. Everybody was excited about low cap about $ 400k. Watching this ICO telegram group was, to be honest, a bit insane. Two weeks later – everybody knows the story. For me the ending was not so bad as I did not lose any funds; but some people who accumulated and held their`s, ended up like Hodor from J.R.R. Martin’s books.

But you can ask the question: what was wrong with the ICO?
Some claim that the whitepaper was weak – hmm.. I do not think so – the whole idea of token which gives some small percent of dividend could cause some trouble- just like ICO veteran, Ian Balina, said - Confido can be considered as security token, so it would have never left EtherDelta. The guy who wrote the paper was really clever – using some catchy words like Kleros, Chainlink, and Escrow for crypto payments is something like the Holy Grail, new crypto PayPal.

But what was really wrong with Confido – when someone wants to collect money for business, such a person has to make contacts with investors, show their face in the media, youtube – there should be a real person behind it. In case of Confido – no one showed their face, there was no interviews, only some fake linkedin profiles and the web page. There was no proof of life. Sometimes ICOs seem to be collectively delusional – everything is clear but no one wants to believe it.

I am starting to think that the ICO case was some kind of trolling, someone wanted to prove that it is easy to rip people off.