I've read your article. I agree that Civic may not be a solid investment for me atm though I disagree with your reasoning.

1. The amount of ICO's in recent history is arbitrary and has no relevance to the quality of another ICO.
2. There are always "better" ways to invest your money depending on who you ask. You are assuming the intention of the investor, something no one can predict. I might enjoy "investing" in an ICO as an early adopter or I might end up day trading in crypto on a dax. It's personal preference.
3. Hype? So we are buying into an ICO only when it generates hype? How about reading the white paper, researching the devs, understanding the tech and how it impacts an industry? I don't rely solely on hype for my investment decisions.
4. The number of pages written in a forum has no relevance to the content of an ICO. It's as though you simply revolve around hype to make your investment decisions.
5. I haven't had an issue with authentication but there are a few discrepancies I take issue with.

Here is why I won't invest in the Civic ICO:

1. Civic does not apply it's verification for bank account transactions.
2. I didn't find any mention of protection for lost wallets.
3. Civic does not offer any credit repair services, only protection.
4. Civic takes a fee from credit inquiry services which use the authentication process Civic provides to fast track your request.
5. Lifelock and Identity Guard provide more services and would be worth paying the annual fees than a lackluster "free" service we'd be buying into using BTC/ETH anyways.