There Are a Few Reasons to Get Worried About the UTRUST ICO

Everyone needs to be aware of how initial coin offerings carry a lot of promise, but an equally large amount of risk. Just because you give money to complete strangers on the Internet doesn’t mean they will repay you, after all. The UTRUST ICO is getting a lot of negative criticism as of late. CryptoBriefing cited a “lack of transparency and experience”. This is a common development in the ICO world, unfortunately, as good ideas and lots of money don’t always make for a competent team.

UTRUST ICO Gets Downgraded

It is never good when people who perform independent reviews of cryptocurrency ICOs have to warn the public about certain investments. While we applaud the people brave enough to point out issues with initial coin offerings, their remarks are often lost in the overflowing sea of shilling, FUD, derogatory comments and even censorship. In the case of UTRUST, however, it seems there are some genuine reasons to be concerned over what this company aims to achieve.

One of the first things people always have to worry about with an ICO is who is behind the project. Although this information can be easily faked, there will be more projects who reveal the identities of the actual people in charge. Any project failing or refusing to do so needs to be avoided, as it will most certainly have something to hide. UTRUST is operated by a person known as Nuno Correia, although it is doubtful he has the necessary know-how to pull off a successful venture on this scale.

More specifically, his lack of legal expertise could come and byte UTRUST in the rear. We have seen increased scrutiny by governments when it comes to ICOs, most notably in the legal department. Without proper legal staff on hand, this project could eventually collapse due to a lack of preparation. It is understandable some people think they can handle everything, but running an ICO and the associated project is a far more demanding venture than most people assume.

On the UTRUST website, we see plenty of team members mentioned. One would assume they are more than sufficient to ensure a proper ICO and hopefully a profitable company in the future. Surprisingly, most of these individuals bring no real knowledge to the table, which suddenly makes this whole enterprise far more worrisome. Nearly all members of this team work for an unknown web design and development firm. They have none of the necessary skills to run a company per se, especially not one which aims to tackle the industry in which UTRUST will be active.

Secondly, there is the UTRUST whitepaper. Over the past few years, the appeal of a whitepaper has gone from “amazing work” to “a piece of paper with no value”. Anyone in the world can write whitepapers. The author of this article has been contacted multiple times to write whitepapers on behalf of ICOs but always refused. If people want to raise money for a project they think will change the world, the least they can do is explain it properly in words. The UTRUST whitepaper is quite complete, although it contains no real contact information. That’s a worrisome sign, according to CryptoBriefing.

In the end, it remains to be seen if any of these concerns are justified. While it is true things look anything but impressive for UTRUST right now, there is still plenty of time to turn things around. For a company aiming to raise just under US$50 million in an effort to compete with PayPal, the current course of action will not be sufficient whatsoever. Aspirations and money will almost never trump experience. There are some exceptions in this regard, but UTRUST may not necessarily become one of them.