Bancor - Hidden Code Sparks Outrage
So Last week Bancor made history being one of the very few ICO's to make at least $150 Million . For those of you who don't know what Bancor is, below is a couple minute video overview.
Problem 1
There was a hidden cap where those running the ICO could decide when to cut it off.
*Cap of 14 Days (Shown Below)
*Code Below Shows basically the team can choose to when they reveal it, meaning there is no/little transparency
Problem 2
The code below basically shows that the Bancor Team can disable all transactions any time they wish
Problem 3
The Team can Issue New Tokens any time they want to (without notice to the individuals investing in the ico/coin)
Problem 4
The Bancor Team can destroy any tokens whenever they want
Now it is very possible the Bancor will never do any of the items above, but it surprises me that those who invested 150 Million dollars into something didn't see if there were any hidden sections in the code. I didn't invest in this, so let me know what you think below.
If you like this post feel free to "Resteem" this post and follow me at "https://steemit.com/@cryptowallet"
Bancor might not use that code, but it's certainly making hackers drool. As Trump would say: Not good, it's very baaaad, baaaaad.
Very baad, very very baaad!
what is the impact?
They can freeze transactions, create coins whenever they want, and remove your coins. That is terrible. Even if they say they are going to only do that in "Emergencies", when investing you shouldn't have to place that much trust.
Imagine they get hacked, all the coins could suddenly deleted or billions could flood the market.... Very Bad
The investors must be jittery now
Bancor is very interesting @ch00fy
be careful!!! to many scams can look like real platform .....
Totally counter active. The whole reason Bitcoin was considered as an alternative to the current system was because of ideas like Keynes fascist systems that kill true trade, Bancor reps should be ashamed to even associate themselves with Keynes's ideas. They are only trying to present the positive side of the argument, the negative side is that the small currencies will prevent the larger currencies from having true value, they are talking about a central control, and that's counter to the whole point to blockchain, whoever invested in this is looking for a system that allows for our freedom of trade to be taken away. I would stay clear from these people if you care about your children and their future.
You can't trust a company that has code like this. Run for the exits if you have any of these tokens!
I have been questioning Bancor since I first heard about it, the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to be a part of something that trails the general market, and doesn't actually produce any more useful abilities than what already exists, albeit not in the most user friendly form.
certainly does not give me trust in the coin. I know my Father in law bought in on the ICO and I choose not to. I spent some time talking to him about this last night and I think he is going to sell pretty quickly. Intangible coins are hard enough to trust without a doomsday written into the code.
Yikes! That doesn't seem very cool of them. I'm glad you posted this!
Just to share @cryptowallet ... EOS is also headed in that direction. It is basically insurance against DAO situations. That's my take on it. It would have been better had the DAO put a clause in there for their board to freeze the contract, or forcefully change things, ect. should there be a bug in the code. This idea of unmodified code / tokens is very libertarian, but it is also impractical many times, and doesn't align with how most of the world thinks outside of crypto world.
Also, I would want to double check it is a function to create and destroy bancor tokens, not a function to create and destroy tokens on their platform. Their platform was designed for people to create an destroy system tokens that launch on BANCOR... for things like ETF's which require that tokens be created and destroyed by users.
Also, the hidden cap was part of the original ICO documentation. It was shared that the cap was hidden before ICO launch. So it was transparent.