The Xangle research team found that out A third of retail US investors who took part in the test felt “misled” by the initial coin offerings or that the projects had withheld information from them.
Especially Xangle’s survey is small and based on 600 respondents who invested in an ICO between 2017 and October 2020. The majority (44%) of the respondents were between 25 and 44 years old, 58% more women than men.
On this basis Xangle suggests that “there is no such thing as a typical ICO investor,” although it does not elaborate on its survey methodology and respondent selection.
However, Xangle notes that the retail investors surveyed were not limited to those who were hit by the early ICO boom. Only 22% of respondents invested for the first time in 2017, while 35% invested for the first time in 2018, 26% in 2019 and 9% in 2020.
Most respondents (46.7%) invested a small sum of less than $ 1,000. A significant proportion of investors (29.2%) invested between $ 1,001 and $ 10,000. About 8% invested between $ 10,001 and $ 20,000.
Informal relationships and word of mouth played a very important role in the decisions made by these investors: 45.7% said friends, family or co-workers were the source of information about the ICO they wanted to invest in. Thereafter, media coverage, forums and social networking sites were the source of information for 15%, 19.2% and 17.7% of investors, respectively.
Close by55% of respondents invested in the ICO because they were motivated to see a possible return on their investment, 23% because they believed in the idea behind the project, and 17% because they wanted to learn more about the technology behind the ICO Cryptocurrencies.
A constant theme in the survey is investors’ feeling that they haven’t done enough research on the project. and nearly 56% said they would invest in an ICO again in the future but continue to investigate the offer. Roughly 33% believed that the ICO had deliberately misled or withheld information from them. Another 17% replied that they “didn’t know”, which means that they still did not have enough information to be able to judge with hindsight whether the ICO was misleading or fraudulent.
These statistics may explain the fact that at 54% Most respondents believe that ICO operators should be held criminally accountable for projects that are found to be fraudulent.
Of the five answers to the question “What is holding back cryptocurrencies?” Three responses entered information and oversight problems. 27.5% said they don’t know what cryptocurrencies do and how they work in general. 23.7% stated insufficient regulation; and another 14.5% indicated the lack of transparency of the ICO information.
Earlier this yearCointelegraph published an article titled “The Death of ICOs” mentioning the rise in the role and influence of US regulators on token offering in the years following the initial boom in ICOs. Industry in 2017.
Don’t stop reading: