Many exchanges have doubled up as ICO advisors. The move makes sense: the exchange ensures that a good project is guided through legal and other processes and ends up trading on its exchange. One feeds into the other and the exchange owners make a lot of fees along the way for the services they provide. But is there a hint of conflict here? For starters, traders of cryptocurrencies would naturally want to choose an exchange that has them (the traders) as the most important stakeholder.
But if the exchange has doubled up as ICO advisor then are they likely to somehow give more importance to the trades of their ‘client’s’ tokens? Secondly, exchanges are also supposed to play an independent assessment of tokens that trade on their exchange.
This is why the big established exchanges charge a bomb for listings. But if the project was a client, then is the exchanges’ independence in this matter whittled away? This is clearly something for the so called self regulation of the industry to work its way through.