Recently the trend of more and more funding for cryptocurrency project alarms me. Cryptocurrency projects are traditionally built by small groups of highly intelligent individuals that right very short amounts of code. This is because cryptocurrency is complicated mathematically and technically, but it requires very little gruntwork to complete.

Bancor Example

For example, Bancor was attacked previously for only having 40 lines of core code - some attacked for costing 3.5 million dollars of funding for each line (https://blog.bancor.network/this-analysis-of-bancor-is-flawed-18ab8a000d43?gi=f7b87fb18654)

As crazy as this sounds, the less code there is in a project the better it is - it means it the code could be more easily understood. It also means that audits of the code can be done faster and with less room for mistake.

EOS

EOS is amazingly successful right now, with more than 600,000 ETH raised in the first phase of the ICO. thats more than $162 M worth of tokens. I love Dan's project and EOS is truely ground breaking. but the problem is - do they really need THIS much money?

Worring trend with Initial Coin Offerings

We have problem with the current ICO climate in that people not supporting crowd funded projects because of the final product - many ICOs are so popular that the tokens or coins can be flipped immediately on the market for big bucks. Because there is a finite amount of good projects - the demand of coins from investors is far exceeding the supply provided by good projects.

This is resulting in good projects having the potential to recieve bigger and bigger amounts of funding. We see a near exponential growth of ICO funding. Whilst this makes sense with supply and demand, the big problem is that these project really don't need anywhere near the amount they are getting to succeed. And more importantly, adding more money to be pot doesn't increase development rate.

What do you guys think of the current ICO climate?