It’s not only what you say but “how” you say it: linguistic styles and ICOs success

Digital technologies have created new alternative sources of entrepreneurial finance that create significant opportunities for start-ups and entrepreneurs. Among them, Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) have attracted significant attention from the start-up community and from investors. Despite all the hype around ICOs and the growing number of new token offerings being launched on a daily basis, little is known about the characteristics of successful ICOs. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature by exploring whether and how the linguistic styles adopted in the white paper affects the success of an ICO as measured by the actual amount raised by the offering. Our results are based on a primary dataset of 131 ICOs completed between June 2017 and October 2018. Our results suggest that the use of precise language is positively associated with the amount funded while the use of a concrete language and more numerical terms is negatively associated with the amount funded. This study contributes to the growing literature on ICOs by providing novel insights into the role of the communication strategy adopted by token issuers.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

On Downloading and Using CPLEX within COIN-OR for Solving Linear/Integer Optimization Problems

The aim of this technical report is to present some detailed explanations in order to use the solver CPLEX within COIN-OR environment. In particular, we describe how to download, install and use the corresponding source code and libraries under Windows and Linux operating systems. We will use an example taken from the literature, with the experimental code and files written in C++, to describe the whole process of editing, compiling and running the executable, to solve this optimization problem by using this software. In the case of the Windows environment, a C++ compiler is also needed. We will use the Visual C++ 2010 Express Edition.CPLEX, COIN-OR, C++

From Inactivity to Full Enforcement: The Implementation of the Do No Harm Approach in Initial Coin Offerings

This Article analyzes the way the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has enforced securities laws with regard to Initial Coin Offerings (“ICOs”). In a speech held in 2016, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Chairman Christopher Giancarlo emphasized the similarities between the advent of the blockchain technology and the Internet era. He offered the “do no harm” approach as the best way to regulate blockchain technology. The Clinton administration implemented the “do no harm” approach at the beginning of the Internet Era in the 1990s when regulators sought to support technological innovations without stifling them with burdensome rules. This Article suggests that the SEC adopted a “do no harm approach” and successfully pursued two of its fundamental institutional goals when enforcing securities laws in the context of ICOs: investor protection and preservation of capital formation. After providing a brief description of the basics of ICOs and the way they have evolved in the last two years, this Article examines the transition into a new phase of full enforcement action implemented by the SEC. This shift from inactivity to enforcement was gradual, characterized by clearly identifiable steps. Data on ICOs demonstrates that this rigorous enforcement of securities laws has not damaged the industry in the United States and may suggest that entrepreneurs have adapted to this enforcement approach. By contrast, a lack of enforcement would have probably increased uncertainty to the detriment of investors and entrepreneurs and put the UNITED STATES at a disadvantage in the international arena. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes the importance of pursuing specific goals in the short-to-medium term, particularly in order to make securities regulation uniform and avoid differences at the state and federal levels, as well as to encourage industry authorities such as Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs) to develop high standards for self-regulation

Crypto Coin Offerings and the Freedom of Expression

In his Article, Professor Travis argues that the freedom of expression protects crypto coin software and related economic and technical speech from being treated like a simple offering of stock in a bank or an oil company. The Article lays out how crypto coin white papers are not strictly commercial speech, and blockchain networks are not traditional corporations or limited partnerships, but rather that crypto coins and their white papers promote information sharing, open-source software, insights in computer science and peer-to-peer networking technologies, and new socio-economic and political models of decentralized collaboration

Regulation by Selective Enforcement: The SEC and Initial Coin Offerings

The Securities and Exchange Commission regulates the securities markets. However, Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) do not require the usual disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission when securities are sold to the public. Prior to ICOs, courts typically used the Supreme Court’s Howeytest to determine whether an investment is a security. The vagueness of this test resulted in the Securities and Exchange Commission using Regulation by Selective Enforcement. In selecting significant actions, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been able to publicize cases with facts favorable to treating ICOs as securities. Regulation by Selective Enforcement has successfully established the Security and Exchange Commission’s authority over ICOs. However, major legal issues still remain and by only sanctioning more recent ICOs, the early movers retain power. This Article concludes that although the Security and Exchange Commission has taken steps to regulate ICOs, it has yet to totally resolve when a token is a security

Open Educational Content for Digital Public Libraries

If the production of digital content for teaching -- particularly free content -- is to expand substantially, there must be mechanisms to establish a link to fame and fortune that was not perceived in a pre-digital world. How that might be done is the central question this report addresses, in the context of examining the movement for open educational content. Understanding that movement requires delving into the history of what may seem, on first pass, a totally unrelated field of endeavor. The reader's patience is requested....