I've read your article. I agree that Civic may not be a solid investment for me atm though I disagree with your reasoning.
- The amount of ICO's in recent history is arbitrary and has no relevance to the quality of another ICO.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Civic does not apply it's verification for bank account transactions.
- I didn't find any mention of protection for lost wallets.
- Civic does not offer any credit repair services, only protection.
- Civic takes a fee from credit inquiry services which use the authentication process Civic provides to fast track your request.
- 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.