The legal content of a white paper for an ICO (initial coins offering)

Kasatkin, Sergey

doi:10.1080/13600834.2021.1950382

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the same vein, Aggarwal, Hanley and Zhao (2019) and Yen, Wang and Chen (2021) examine external quality ratings, while Belitski and Boreiko (2022) interpret additional venture characteristics as quality signals. 6 For instance, Faust et al (2022) and Mansouri and Momtaz (2022) examine whitepapers using machine learning models, while Samieifar and Baur (2021), Florysiak and Schandlbauer (2022), Kasatkin (2022) and Thewissen et al (2022Thewissen et al ( , 2023) also focus on whitepaper characteristics; Roosenboom, van der Kolk and de Jong (2020) examine bonus schemes and offering duration; Amsden and Schweizer (2018) consider the ETH/USD traded price and volatility; Albrecht, Lutz and Neumann (2020) focus on the initial offering price and online search trends; Blaseg (2018), Momtaz (2020), Campino, Brochado andRosa (2021), Guzman, Pinto-Gutierrez and Trujillo (2021) Wei (2021), andXu et al (2021) focus on venture team characteristics; venture CEO characteristics are examined by Momtaz (2021aMomtaz ( , 2021c and Colombo et al (2022);Fisch, Meoli and Vismara (2022) examine the choice of token offerings versus traditional financing alternatives; topics such as venture capital investor participation, venture domicile and fraudulent behaviour are examined by Giudici and Adhami (2019), An et al (2021), Hackober and Bock (2021) (similar to the topics examined for traditional venture capital finance by Capizzi, Croce andTenca, 2022 andLevasseur, Johan andEckhardt, 2022), Shrestha et al (2021), Hornuf, Kück andSchwienbacher (2022), Swartz (2022), and…”

Section: Hypothesis Development and Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not all analysis of whitepapers uses machine learning techniques. In this strand of the literature, Thewissen et al (2022) suggest that particular topics are associated with higher fundraising success, while Thewissen et al (2023) analyse the negative impact of linguistic errors in whitepapers and Kasatkin (2022) focuses on their legal content -a topic which is similar to the 'legal signalling' examined by Schnyder et al (2022) in the context of IPOs.…”

Section: Hypothesis Development and Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The New Tokenomics of Crowdfunding

Alexander,

Dakos

2023

British J of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether proxied by the amount raised or the probability that this amount exceeds the soft cap, the factors driving the fundraising success of token offerings have changed considerably over the past 4 years. Possible factors include target market capitalization for the token, genuine signals of the venture's public credibility, price and momentum of ether, domicile of the venture and distribution of the token. There is a large previous literature on this topic, rooted in the entrepreneurial finance and crowdfunding literature, with numerous hypotheses based on signalling theory in its broadest sense. But due to substantial differences in samples, which end before 2020, the results are not only mixed but out of date. We have built the largest and most complete dataset on token offerings, spanning 2017 and 2022. The determinants of the amount raised were robust to different subsamples until the market virtually disappeared during the Covid pandemic. But it resumed in early 2021 and within 12 months had reached an all‐time high in terms of number if not market capitalization of new offerings. During this period the market changed completely, with success now depending mostly on the type of token offering and the choice of launchpad platform.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis Development and Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypothesis Development and Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The New Tokenomics of Crowdfunding

Alexander,

Dakos

2023

British J of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Startups and established firms find it attractive to register and launch ICOs in jurisdictions with predictable and clear regulations, such as the legal clarity of BCPs. In such jurisdictions, the initiators of ICO projects can include the key legal provisions in a white paper, providing legal guarantees to investors (Kasatkin 2022). Furthermore, jurisdictions that take administrative measures (Feldman and Kelley 2002;Keuschnigg and Nielsen 2001) to facilitate the availability of key ingredients needed for blockchain firms are preferable from the perspective of locating higherend activities, such as headquarters and R&D facilities, and management employees.…”

Section: Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The nature and sources of international variation in formal institutions related to initial coin offerings: preliminary findings and a research agenda

Kshetri

2023

Financ Innov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As prior researchers have suggested, a firm’s success in an international market depends on how well its strategy fits the nonmarket environment, such as formal institutions. This paper examines the determinants of formal institutions around new areas of economic activities. Specifically, we propose a framework for understanding how the quality of formal institutions in promoting entrepreneurship drives the focus of such institutions concerning initial coin offering (ICO), which is emerging as a popular fundraising method. The paper uses inductive analysis to examine how nonmarket factors—such as a jurisdiction’s tax haven nature, regulators’ perceptions of ICOs as threats to national or political interests, and trade and industry associations—might moderate the relationship between the quality of institutions and the focus of such institutions regarding ICOs. One of this study’s key findings is that an economy’s quality of entrepreneurship-related institutions, perceived threats to national/political interests, and tax haven nature lead to different policy orientations. Consequently, regulators assign different importance when promoting crypto-entrepreneurship and dealing with associated risks. Regulators focusing mainly on promoting crypto-ventures have taken measures to enrich the blockchain ecosystem and provided tax and non-tax incentives to attract such ventures. Regulators focusing mainly on dealing with crypto-venture risks rely on a regulatory sandbox and close regulatory monitoring of such ventures.

show abstract

“…In the same vein, Aggarwal, Hanley and Zhao (2019) and Yen, Wang and Chen (2021) examine external quality ratings, while Belitski and Boreiko (2022) interpret additional venture characteristics as quality signals. 6 For instance, Faust et al (2022) and Mansouri and Momtaz (2022) examine whitepapers using machine learning models, while Samieifar andBaur (2021), Florysiak andSchandlbauer (2022), Kasatkin (2022) and Thewissen et al (2022Thewissen et al ( , 2023) also focus on whitepaper characteristics; Roosenboom, van der Kolk and de Jong (2020) examine bonus schemes and offering duration; Amsden and Schweizer (2018) consider the ETH/USD traded price and volatility; Albrecht, Lutz and Neumann (2020) focus on the initial offering price and online search trends; Blaseg (2018), Momtaz (2020), Campino, Brochado and Rosa (2021), Guzman, Pinto-Gutierrez and Trujillo (2021) Huang, Vismara and Wei (2021), and Xu et al (2021) focus on venture team characteristics; venture CEO characteristics are examined by Momtaz (2021aMomtaz ( , 2021c and Colombo et al (2022);Fisch, Meoli and Vismara (2022) examine the choice of token offerings versus traditional financing alternatives; topics such as venture capital investor participation, venture domicile and fraudulent behaviour are examined by Giudici and Adhami (2019), An et al (2021), Hackober and Bock (2021) (similar to the topics examined for traditional venture capital finance by Capizzi, Croce andTenca, 2022 andLevasseur, Johan andEckhardt, 2022), Shrestha et al (2021), Hornuf, Kück and…”

Section: Hypothesis Development and Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%