ICO vs. IEO vs. IDO: A Comprehensive Guide to Crypto Fundraising Models

The landscape of capital formation in the blockchain industry has undergone a radical transformation over the last decade. We have moved from the unregulated “Wild West” of early Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), where a white paper and a website were sufficient to raise millions, to the centralised trust mechanisms of Initial Exchange Offerings (IEOs), and finally to the decentralised autonomy of Initial DEX Offerings (IDOs).

For founders and investors alike, understanding the nuances of these models is no longer just about preference; it is a matter of survival. Choosing the wrong fundraising vehicle in 2026 can lead to severe regulatory penalties under frameworks like MiCA, or a total lack of liquidity that kills a project before it begins.

Defining the three models

To navigate the market effectively, one must first clearly define the mechanics behind these acronyms.

Initial Coin Offering (ICO)

What is ICO? An Initial Coin Offering is the original crypto fundraising model, functionally similar to a digital version of a traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO) or crowdfunding campaign. In an ICO, the project issues a specific number of tokens and sells them directly to the public via its own website.

Crucially, an ICO removes all intermediaries. The project team is solely responsible for the smart contract creation, the marketing, the collection of funds (usually in ETH or stablecoins), and the subsequent distribution of tokens. While this offers maximum control, it places the entire burden of trust and security on the issuer.

Initial Exchange Offering (IEO)

What is IEO? An Initial Exchange Offering introduces a trusted intermediary: a centralised cryptocurrency exchange (CEX). In this model, the exchange acts as the underwriter and counterparty. The project pays a listing fee and often a percentage of the tokens to the exchange.

In return, the exchange conducts due diligence on the project, manages the sale through its own platform, and handles the distribution of tokens to investors’ exchange wallets. This model capitalises on the exchange’s existing user base and reputation, offering investors a higher degree of perceived safety.

Initial DEX Offering (IDO)

What is IDO? An Initial DEX Offering is a fundraising model executed via a decentralised exchange (DEX). It relies on permissionless liquidity pools and smart contracts rather than a centralised order book.

In an IDO, the project launches its token through a decentralised launchpad or directly on a DEX like Uniswap or PancakeSwap. The price discovery is often automated via a bonding curve. This model is characterised by immediate liquidity, as the funds raised are typically paired with the new token to create a liquidity pool instantly upon the conclusion of the sale.

Also read: Guide to Establish Your DeFi Under MiCA in 2026

Request a free consultation with our experts

Core differences between ICO, IEO, and IDO

Vetting and trust

The primary differentiator between these models is who holds the responsibility for due diligence.

• ICO: There is zero external vetting. The trust is placed entirely in the project team’s claims. This lack of oversight was the primary driver for the regulatory crackdown seen in the EU and globally;
• IEO: The centralised exchange vets the project to protect its own reputation. If a major exchange lists a scam, they risk losing their user base and facing regulatory scrutiny for facilitating fraud;
• IDO: Vetting is often communal or non-existent. While some decentralised launchpads have governance votes to approve projects, many IDOs are permissionless, meaning anyone can create a pool. This embodies the “code is law” philosophy, but requires high technical literacy from investors.

Liquidity and listing

Liquidity is the lifeblood of any crypto asset.

• ICO: Liquidity is the hardest challenge. After the sale, the project must negotiate with exchanges to get listed. There is often a dangerous gap between the fundraising and the first listing, where the token is untradeable;
• IEO: Liquidity is guaranteed. The token is listed on the hosting exchange immediately after the sale concludes, providing an instant secondary market;
• IDO: Liquidity is immediate and automated. The fundraising mechanism itself creates the liquidity pool. However, this liquidity is often shallow compared to CEXs and can be subject to high slippage.

Cost and accessibility

• ICO: Moderate cost. The main expenses are marketing, legal structuring, and white paper drafting. There are no listing fees during the raise;
• IEO: High cost. Exchanges charge significant listing fees and may require a large portion of the token supply. However, this buys immediate access to millions of users;
• IDO: Low cost. The costs are primarily gas fees for deploying contracts and the initial liquidity provided by the team. It is the most accessible model for bootstrapped startups.

Strategic selection: which should founders choose?

The decision ultimately hinges on the project’s maturity, budget, and target demographic.

• Choose an IEO if: You have a significant budget and require immediate access to a mass retail market. It is suitable for projects that need the “stamp of approval” from a Tier-1 institution to build trust;
• Choose an IDO if: You are building a Web3-native protocol, a DeFi application, or a DAO. If your target audience already uses MetaMask and understands on-chain mechanics, an IDO aligns with the ethos of your product;
• Choose an ICO if: You have a massive, pre-existing community and do not want to dilute equity or token supply to an intermediary. However, this route now requires the heaviest legal lifting to remain compliant with MiCA.

Cover the basics: Key Differences Between DeFi, CeFi, and TradFi

Regulatory landscape

In the European Union, the “Wild West” era is definitively over. The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation has introduced a unified framework that impacts all three models.

The “Identifiable Issuer” Principle

Under MiCA, if a crypto-asset has an “identifiable issuer,” that entity is subject to strict rules. This applies to ICOs, IEOs, and many IDOs.

• White Paper Requirements: Any offer to the public of crypto-assets (other than ARTs or EMTs) requires a detailed crypto-asset white paper. This document must contain information on the issuer, the project, the rights attached to the tokens, and the underlying technology. Crucially, the white paper must be notified to the competent authority at least 20 working days before publication;
• Liability: The issuer is civilly liable for the information given in the white paper. If the information in the white paper is misleading or incomplete, holders can claim damages.

IEOs and CASP Obligations

When an exchange conducts an IEO, they are engaging in the “placing of crypto-assets,” which is a regulated crypto-asset service.

• Conflict of Interest: MiCA explicitly requires CASPs to have specific procedures to manage conflicts of interest, specifically when placing crypto-assets with their own clients or when incentives are paid by the issuer to the CASP;
• Suitability: If the exchange promotes the IEO, they may be required to assess whether the asset is suitable for the client.

IDOs and the “Fully Decentralised” Exemption

MiCA Recital 22 states that where services are provided in a “fully decentralised manner without any intermediary,” they do not fall within the scope of the regulation. However, this exemption is narrow. If a foundation or a development company writes the code, promotes the IDO, and holds admin keys, they are an “identifiable issuer” or a service provider. Regulators are adopting a “substance over form” approach. Therefore, most IDOs initiated by a specific team will still require a compliant white paper and notification to the regulator.

Also read: CEX vs DEX – Key Differences for Entrepreneurs & Investors

Still unsure? You can rely on legal experts, it’s free

Where should crypto founders do their ICO, IEO, and IDO

Choosing the right jurisdiction is the first step in regulatory engineering. For projects targeting the European market, the following jurisdictions offer distinct advantages for establishing the issuing entity.

Poland 

Poland is currently one of the most popular choices for 2026. It offers a cost-effective entry point with a simple VASP registration process that is currently evolving to meet MiCA standards. It allows for a relatively fast setup, often between 2 and 4 months, making it ideal for startups sensitive to burn rates.

Czech Republic

Similar to Poland, the Czech Republic offers a straightforward VASP authorisation process. It is considered a “crypto-friendly” hub in Central Europe with moderate costs and a clear path to operations.

Estonia & Lithuania 

These Baltic states were the pioneers of crypto regulation. While Estonia has tightened its rules significantly (requiring a higher share capital and real local presence), it remains a jurisdiction of high repute. Lithuania offers a balanced approach with a 125,000 EUR share capital requirement and a transparent regulator, serving as a gateway for many FinTechs.

Offshore Options

For projects that do not target the EU market or wish to issue utility tokens with a global scope outside of MiCA’s immediate reach, jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands, or Panama remain relevant for token issuance vehicles. However, marketing these tokens to EU citizens will still trigger MiCA compliance.

Conclusion

The era of “launch first, ask questions later” has ended. Whether you choose an ICO, IEO, or IDO, the underlying asset and the method of sale are now subject to rigorous scrutiny under MiCA. The distinction between a compliant token launch and an illegal securities offering is often a matter of precise legal structuring and documentation.

At LegalBison, we specialise in navigating this complex matrix. We assist founders in:

• Drafting MiCA-compliant white papers: Ensuring all disclosure requirements of Article 6 are met;
• Legal Opinions: classifying your token correctly (Utility vs. Security vs. E-Money Token) to determine the correct regulatory path;
• Entity Formation: Establishing your issuing entity in the optimal jurisdiction, be it Poland, Estonia, or offshore.

Don’t let regulatory uncertainty paralyse your fundraising. Contact our team today for a free consultation on your token launch strategy.

Contact Us

FAQ 

What is the difference between an ICO and an IEO? 

The main difference is the intermediary. An ICO is a direct sale from the project to the investor, requiring the project to handle all security and marketing. An IEO is conducted through a centralised exchange (CEX), which vets the project and handles the sale process, offering higher trust but at a higher cost.

Is an IDO legal under MiCA? 

It depends on the structure. If the IDO is fully decentralised with no identifiable issuer, it may be exempt. However, if there is a team or legal entity organising the IDO, they must likely comply with MiCA’s requirements for offerors, including publishing a white paper and notifying regulators.

Do I need a license to launch an ICO in Europe? 

You generally do not need a full CASP license to issue a utility token (ICO), but you must be a legal person and submit a compliant white paper to the competent authority. However, if you provide custody or exchange services for that token, you will need a license. Issuing Asset-Referenced Tokens (stablecoins) requires a specific authorisation.

Which country is best for an IDO? 

For the legal entity behind the protocol, jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands or Cayman Islands are popular due to their virtual asset frameworks. Within the EU, Poland and the Czech Republic offer efficient setups for development companies that may interact with the protocol.

What is the “Travel Rule” in crypto fundraising? 

The Travel Rule requires CASPs (like exchanges in an IEO) to collect and share personal data about the participants in a transaction. This means IEO participants must undergo strict KYC (Know Your Customer) checks.