Open ICO Class Action
List of ICOs accepting new members
Reviews and audits
Read our reviews on upcoming ICOs before invest
Open ICO Class Action (27)
List of ICOs accepting new members
Sparkster
237 class membersaction
Overview:
Sparkster has soaked up millions of dollars of investment capital and returned nothing in the way of a viable product. Almost a year after their inception and ICO, Sparkster have pocketed the money drawn from eager investors and haven’t even released their token to the market.
Their original proposal was unrealistic and hasn’t ever been accomplished even in testing. The management team for Sparkster engage regularly (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Undelivered project
– 99.9% value lost
– Token delisted
– Unrealistic proposal
– False white paper
Storiqa
0 class membersaction
Overview:
It has been eighteen months since Storiqa's ICO closed, and the company has now completely given up on their investors. They never had anything real to show to their investors, and soaked up almost 25m USD in funds, to no real end. Today, their websites are unresponsive, their social media is abandoned and rife with attacks by disgruntled investors, and there is no trace of the company behind the (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 97% value loss
– No working product
– Team vanished
– Heavy competition
BitClave
0 class membersaction
Overview:
When BitClave's ICO went live, they reached their hard cap of 25m USD in just 32 seconds. This news has been widely misreported somewhat, as most outlets fail to mention the 22m USD they secured in pre-ICO investments which cannot be verified and ultimately are a mere declaration from the issuer. This project was promised to be a next-generation rival to Google, Yahoo and Bing, proposing a truly decentralised search (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 99% value loss
– No tangible product
– No fund supervision
– Unrealistic proposal
– Dubious registration
Qash-Liquid
98 class membersaction
Overview:
Despite the huge amount of hype, AMAs, and the deployment of a plethora of sycophants patrolling Telegram, Reddit etc., Liquid ICO has returned absolutely zero value to investors, and everything promised in their 2017 white paper remains undelivered.
Buyers who threw more than 100m USD into Quoine coffers are now left with a coin valued at less than a quarter of its (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Undelivered project
– No value to investors
– No token utility
– Improper use of funds
– Massively hyped
PlatinCoin
3 class membersaction
Overview:
PlatinCoin (from PLC Group AG) is an elaborate Ponzi/pyramid scheme bursting with red flags, allegations and warnings from key governing financial bodies. In particular, BaFin have come forward to warn against investment into PlatinCoin, owing to their lack of compliance with financial legislation and lack of background information. The CEO of PLC Group AG, Alex Reinhardt, was previously a key team member and an affiliate of SwissCoin, (...read more)
About this project:
– Ponzi/Pyramid
– Scheme
– Hidden team
– BaFin warned
– Associations with
– prior scams
– Wash traded
– coin
NAGA
37 class membersaction
Overview:
NAGA Coin was designed as a decentralized cryptocurrency that would be used for trading and investing in financial markets, virtual goods and other cryptocurrencies, as well as being the primary payment form for all fees and transactions in the “NAGA Ecosystem”.
However, in just over a year, the value of the NAGA token has diminished by almost 99%, making it one of the worst-performing tokens (and (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 98.6% value drop
– Shell incorporation
– Highly hyped
– No real delivery
Invacio AI
66 class membersaction
Overview:
Invacio showed us the perfect recipe for creating scam ICO: pick a fancy technology such as Artificial Intelligence, populate a website with a massive amount of content to confuse the audience, claim something vague like ”making a better world”, lure investors into a pump and dump scheme to achieve the soft cap of the ICO, discharge as many coins as possible when the ICO starts.
(...read more)
About this ICO:
– 98% drop in value
– Overpromised
– No developments
– No market liquidity
STOX
10 class membersaction
Overview:
Stox gathered approximately $34m USD in its August 2017 ICO in just 34 hours, the bulk of its hype and FOMO driven by a promotion by Floyd "Money" Mayweather. This raises our first red flag, as you may recall Mayweather almost being incarcerated for his involvement in the Centra Tech ICO scam last year. Stox have syphoned this money from their investors and presented nothing over (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Ponzi scheme
– 98% Value loss
– No products
– Founder sued
Bee Token
130 class membersaction
Overview:
The Bee Token has lost 98% of its value because it is and will remain an undelivered project.
Aiming to provide a peer to peer real estate rental platform, the project failed as thousands of investors had their coins stolen as a result of a security breach of the Bee token ecosystem.
Not only is the (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Poor network security
– Deserted website
– Unknown use of funds
– 98% of value lost
– Undelivered project
– No token utility
– No value for investors
Dragon Token
35 class membersaction
Overview:
The Dragon Token team has been very efficient at building the facilities and the exchange platform needed to sell the tokens, but that’s it. The major goal of the project (to provide cash in / cash out to Macau gamblers) remains undelivered and is unlikely to ever be accomplished because no one needs the Dragon Token. There are a number of much more reputable coins (Bitcoin, Ether, (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Phoney operations
– No token utility
– 98% of value lost
– Faulty project
– Massively hyped
– No accountability
HybridBlock
70 class membersaction
Overview:
“A world-class, all-in-one cryptocurrency trading system” whose founding partners consist of a sporting celebrity and an ex-director of a company halted by the BCSC for email spamming.
These do not sound like the kind of people that have the ability to launch a game-changing cryptocurrency ecosystem, but that is exactly what they set out (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 99.5% value loss
– Platform abandoned
– Non-existing product
Sirin Labs
63 class membersaction
Overview:
Take a junky, brick-looking phone handset, wrap it in lies, hypes and tech nonsense, price it at $16,666 and you’ve got Sirin Lab ICO. They called it crowdfunding, we call it a scam.
Nothing of this ICO shows us a genuine project worthy the 80m USD deposited at the time of inception. All we see is a faulty idea, misrepresentation of products (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Low-quality product
– Massive overpricing
– Misrepresentation
– Improper use of funds
– Tech nonsense
– 95% of value lost
Savedroid
35 class membersaction
Overview:
Savedroid are infamous in the cryptocurrency world, but not for having a good product or a successful project. Instead, they’re well-known for launching a despicable hoax on their investors, wherein they completed their ICO with a total of 50m USD in funding, then proceeded to close their website and pretend the whole thing had been an elaborate exit scam.
The CEO, Yassin Hankir, (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 98% value loss
– Scam hoax
– No real product
– Fake marketing
Envion AG
36 class membersaction
Overview
Envion hosted one of the most fraudulent ICOs seen in 2018. Under the guise of a revolutionary, eco-friendly cryptocurrency-mining stroke of genius, Envion swindled one hundred million dollars from thirty-thousand genuine investors. It wasn’t long before the organisation fell apart, the ICO was declared unauthorised and the company ordered to cease trading by a Swiss court.
They comprehensively betrayed every investor and stuffed (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Huge scam
– Worthless coin
– Company closed
– 95% value lost
Expand (GEM)
9 class membersaction
Overview:
Expand (formerly ‘GEM’) set themselves on a path of deceit and manipulation from the early inception stages, employing the use of despicable shill tactics in order to raise as high a volume of funds as possible to fill their own pockets with.
Their project was penned as an “ecosystem that allows workers to have access to meaningful work” and resulted in nothing. (...read more)
About this ICO:
– No investment returns
– Suspicious inception
– Shill tactics
– 98% of value lost
Sphere Social
8 class membersaction
Overview:
The founders of Sphere set out with a plan to create the world’s first decentralised, user-owned social media platform but subsequently failed miserably in their efforts. More than a year after their ICO, the company has yet to realise any of their promises and now hosts a token that has crashed in value to almost nothing.
They preyed on the controversy created recently by Facebook and (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 99.6% value lost
– No real product
– Heavy competition
Engagement Token
17 class membersaction
Overview:
Engagement Token was promised as a revolution within the world of online publishing and ad revenue but in the end, it ultimately produced nothing in terms of results.
The elements put forth in the white paper were revealed in time to be nothing more than hype; nothing was meant to be achieved. They highlighted a bright future for those using the Engagement (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Promises abandoned
– Token irrelevant
– Poor communication
– No user incentive
– Value almost
– non-existent
Viewly
2 class membersaction
Overview:
Viewly has dissolved its corporate entity and abandoned the project. Investors' funds are no longer traceable, and legal action is required to recover them.
If you suffered financial loss related to Viewly, join our class action to claim a refund (...read more)About this ICO:
– Token unreleased
– misuse of funds
– 0 residual value
Atonomi
52 class membersaction
Overview:
Atonomi has had a short and turbulent history since the inception of their ICO in May 2018. The company that promised an “ingenious security protocol and infrastructure to enable trusted interoperability on ‘billions’ of devices” turned out to be nothing more than a multifaceted and multi-tiered scam. The controversy surrounding Atonomi is staggering – investors committing mass dumps on Day One, a CEO being dismissed and (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 98.5% value loss
– Massive dumps
– No product
– Company in tatters
– Deceptive team
REAL
9 class membersaction
Overview:
REAL endeavoured to revolutionise the real estate industry by enabling any user to invest in a fraction of real estate with their “REAL” tokens. However, owing to poor KYC, failed implementation and a lack of development, both REAL and their coin have failed, with an enormous drop of 96% since their ICO. The company has nothing to show for the money raised and haven't taken the steps necessary to (...read more)
About this ICO:
– No product
– No coin value
– Failed promises
MeeTip (OutMySphere)
1 class membersaction
Overview:
From the very origins of their whitepaper, MeeTip (or OutMySphere) had a very dubious and weak proposal. The company claimed they were constructing an app that would link seamlessly with “over 95% of the world’s bars, restaurants and coffee shops” and ensure users could pay for transactions or offer tips to staff using their token – MeeTip (MTIP).
However, more than a year after their ICO, (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Token unlisted
– No value
– No viable product
– No updates
LeadCoin
1 class membersaction
Overview:
LeadCoin is a dead coin. In ICO, the company charged 0.04USD per token – these are now valued at 0.00015USD. This is drop of 99.6%, and as a result the token remains almost completely untraded. The platform that was promised in the whitepaper is completely unrealised and there’s nothing to show for the $50m USD raised in investments at ICO.
This company – and their token (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 99.8% value loss
– Untraded token
– Platform empty
– Key advisor sued
Blockchain Terminal
12 class membersaction
Overview:
Blockchain Terminal has been rife with suspicion since its conception and the origins of its ICO in March 2018. The project was designed to construct and provide industrial-standard crypto trading terminals to general users for a low price, but this fact has never been made a reality.
The company was plunged into doubt and allegation at the end of 2018 as it was (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Token unlisted
– No value
– False advertising
– No sign of product
Bonpay
4 class membersaction
Overview:
Bonpay promised what so many other ICO holders have done in recent years: a decentralised cryptocurrency debit card with seamless integration and zero-fee conversions between crypto and fiat currencies.
However, a year and a half after the inception of their 10m USD ICO, Bonpay: a) have delivered no such product, b) have a token worth almost nothing and c) have abandoned any future development.
(...read more)
About this ICO:
– 98% value drop
– Almost no trade
– No working product
– Founders
– disassociated
Ethersportz
0 class membersaction
Overview:
Ethersportz’ founders recognised the value in eSports: the industry has grown at a rapid rate over the last few years and doesn’t show any sign of slowing down. They capitalised on this information and attempted to create a platform linked heavily to eSports that would see users buy in with and win cryptocurrency for playing.
However, a year later the platform is yet to be realised (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 95% value drop
– Token barely traded
– Platform not built
Cryptocurve
3 class membersaction
Overview:
CryptoCurve have made promises akin to so many others who have hosted ICOs and subsequently have nothing to show for their investment efforts. They have declared themselves as launching a next-generation wallet that will change the face of the crypto trading industry, but this is far from the truth today. Curve have almost nothing to show for the $7.4m USD investment made during their ICO and in their short (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Token unreleased
– Basic product
– Vague use of
– funds
– Negative opinion
BlockCAT
5 class membersaction
Overview:
The founders of BlockCAT made promises similar to those of Sparkster, another ICO holder that funnelled millions into an unrealised platform. They openly stated that they were building a “visual smart contract designer” that would allow anybody in the world to create and deploy smart contracts to the Ethereum blockchain without having any knowledge of code. Again, very similar to Sparkster’s promise of creating toolkits that a user could (...read more)
About this ICO:
– 98% loss of value
– Abandoned platform
– Unoriginal idea
ICO rating and reviews
Read unbiased ICO reviews before investing
Overview:
Virtual Rehab is built around the idea that Virtual Reality can assist with pain and emotional therapy. While this has earned them a variety of accolades, the road to turn it into a viable product and profitable investment is long and bumpy. Their roadmap doesn't span past 2019 and even if their idea could, none of their statistics has sources or citations and so it's difficult to tell. There have been no (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Unaudited ICO
– No IFSS
– New company
– Overhyped
– Weak premises
Overview:
MediConnect aims to reduce the problems of overprescription, counterfeit medication and addiction. The fact that they are a small company with limited backing makes this goal unlikely.
This is a redundant project idea as the NHS has launched an enquiry into these problems. Stating that their ICO can tackle the issue of addiction is sheer hype and is unrealistic.
Their Managing Director and founder is an ex-footballer (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Low soft cap
– Redundant project
– Unqualified team
– No IFSS
– No KYC
Overview:
LinkChain's premise is to create a blockchain-based platform that will allow buyers and suppliers to transact quickly, securely and cost-effectively. Their ideas address real issues in the freelance and self-employment industries in a way that makes sense and comes across as very well founded, but the project remains unaudited and red flags concerning funds supervision.
We are very concerned when examining ICOs which have (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Unclear fund
– supervision
– Unrealistic hard cap
– No IFSS or audit
– High token cost
Overview:
ICOCoinLab's premise is very simple: they will help other companies arrange and run a successful ICO. However, our probe into their incorporation, whitepaper and organisation has revealed some worrying red flags that indicate foul play. Most compellingly we do not even understand for what reason they should run an ICO themselves other than pocketing the money.
The company have an extremely weak incorporation, massive hard (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Unaudited ICO
– No IFSS
– Money grabbing ICO
– Misleading website
– No registration
– Improbable team
Overview:
The premise of VR Park's project is to enable the development of games and software that uses VR and to host conventions and expositions centred around the technology. However, the offer relies on doubtful incorporation, non-existent development to date, sparse team and unconvincing token economics.
We are very concerned when examining ICOs which have no supervision of funds, and no exit scam (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Doubtful team
– Heavy competition
– No FSS or audit
– Website inaccessible
– Massive hard cap
– Minimal soft cap
Overview:
Social Chains' project lacks depth and sincerity. Their team is non-existent on paper, and their proposed budget isn't realistic for the platform they have in mind. The team envision a decentralised social media ecosystem that will revolutise how people interact online, but they have no working proof of concept or viable prototype.
We are very concerned when examining ICOs which have no supervision of funds, and (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Unrealistic budget
– Heavy competition
– No IFSS or audit
– Doubtful team
– No prototype
Overview:
ELAD envisions the ability for anyone to invest in real estate, however, other teams have failed already while implementing this type of projects. Their CEO's, Mr Perkins Maccook, Linkedin results occupied him as an artistic director, he is therefore not qualified for this project.
The white paper is vague and dispassionate, proving that they have no premises in place.
Hardly any of the team have ELAD in their Linkedin profiles (...read more)
About this ICO:
– No soft cap
– Very low hard cap
– Massive discrepancy between pre-ICO and ICO prices
– Unqualified company with no clear goals
– Displays no clear fund allocation
Overview:
Curveblock envisions the ability for anyone to invest in real estate. The idea is to use blockchain to stabilise real estate markets.
Their funds are unsupervised by a third party.
Their fund allocation is vague as it depends on a lot of factors, according to their roadmap. There is no specificity when it comes to what is going where.
They (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Limited soft cap
– Low hard cap
– No fund supervision
– Displays vague fund allocation
– Risky investment in real estate
Overview:
Medicohealth envisions the creation of a world database of medical data, accessible to doctors worldwide. They hype a 2.5m doctors database and populated their website with a huge team and media coverage. However, we remain sceptical over the quality of the database as anyone can purchase a database of doctors on the internet for about 100 USD.
Some advertisement is not matching the information we gathered (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Highly hyped
– Misleading
– advertisement
– No IFSS or audit
– High hard cap
– False soft cap
– No working product
Overview:
BitBounce is running a second ICO after their first one had a 99% of token depreciation.
This company ran an ICO under another name two years ago, as Credo, and raised 12m USD for their token. Now they're running another ICO to finance their BitBounce platform that they insist is already blossoming. The companies themselves are one and the same - CREDO is their token and (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Already ran an ICO
– Red flags in
– registration
– No IFSS or audit
– Token value -99%
– Undisclosed soft cap
Overview:
The team behind Cryptolancers envision a platform for freelancers that uses its token as the primary form of payment for services offered. In a world where freelancing and remote work is quickly becoming the preferred method of working, it's no surprise startups are attempting to get involved, but there's an immense amount of competition on the market and Cryptolancer's project falls very short of the requirements.
(...read more)
About this ICO:
– Heavy competition
– Doubtful team
– No IFSS or audit
– Low token
– distribution
– Unreliable premise
Overview:
The team at MenuBuzz envision the creation of an app that will revolutionise dining, offering customers the ability to purchase food and beverages with a simple app that converts their cryptocurrency to fiat currency for the vendors. Using mobile apps to purchase food and drinks isn't a new premise and it is one that is rife with competition. The project has very little to offer in terms of technology (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Heavy competition
– No KYC
– No IFSS or audit
– High hard cap
– No working product
Overview:
Global Property Register envisions the combination of blockchain and AI technologies to revolutionize the global real estate industry. However, since the team has no specific background in either of the above, the white paper is sheer hype and even contains spelling mistakes, it is unlikely the project will ever produce a viable product.
Many other projects are pursuing similar ideas, but so far none has been able to legally associate the ownership (...read more)
About this ICO:
– High hard cap
– Unclear preposition
– Unqualified team
– No IFSS
– Nothing in place
Overview:
The company behind Reef - claiming to be known as Squid Networks - has an extremely weak incorporation. The majority of their team have nothing but schooling and menial work behind them and have no industry or technical experience. Their company was founded for the sole purpose of raising money for this project. They also have no financial staff listed.
We are very concerned (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Heavy competition
– No IFSS or audit
– No assets
– New company
– Doubtful Team
Overview:
Although the company behind this ICO is long-standing, they've never had any involvement in any technical industry and certainly not in blockchain or crypto. This project is built as a fundraiser for a platform that has a weak premise and foundation, and there are many aspects that stand out as dubious for this ICO.
We are very concerned when examining ICOs which have no supervision of (...read more)
About this ICO:
– Doubtful team
– No IFSS or audit
– No need for token
– Project not viable
Overview:
Dayta project is nothing innovative or benefiting of any IP. The company incorporation is fresh and made for the purpose of their ICO, the project is a startup with nothing in place: no recorded trades, no software infrastructure other than a basic App prototype. The Team does not showcase a specific background in the industry their project is intended for, and nor records of previously successful ventures.
(...read more)
About this ICO:
– Unaudited ICO
– No IFSS
– No innovation
– New company
– Doubtful Team
Request an audit of your ICO
If you represent an ICO issuer and wish to showcase a proper use of your investors’ funds, please contact us to request an audit of your project and its achieved goals.