People should start realizing that anyone is able to create their own ICO.
I'd say that in the majority of the ICOs that are running currently, the team is completely fake and the people behind the ICO most likely doesn't even have any experience to speak of that would be of use in the development of their project.
Their primary goal and objective is to get as much money from the crowdfund, and once that objective is ticked off the box, they will move onto their next project.
ICOs are no longer like the past, it's quite saturated and I think most people should avoid it. These statistics do nothing but echo my exact sentiments.
Topic: 44 % of startups/ICO still active 120 days following the end of their fundraise (Read 371 times)
September 07, 2018, 06:43:56 PM
September 07, 2018, 04:43:26 PM
If they did a survey of how many ICOs are really useful and are they to develop the world? I believe they would be less than 5%. Nowadays anyone wakes up, uses little money and creates an ICO and mind that has a great team and is going to do something X or Z and what irritates the most is the reward bounty hunters who do not care about ethics and just care with their payment at the end of ICO and the scammers have realized that.
Finding a good project is very difficult.
this is a topic that could be debated
I hope good project will have luck on succeeding and providing some values to their costumers.
Finding a good project is very difficult.
honestly, I don't know people who really make money on investments in ICO, only Bounty
this is a topic that could be debated
September 07, 2018, 01:33:50 PM
Most of the icos are affected in this crypto crash so they are finding an alternative way to survive so they are exchanging to USTD the most of the icos will be in safe positoion
September 07, 2018, 11:05:51 AM
I thinks it's a great opportunity for serious businesses with real projects. The hype might be over, but there are still a lot of investors in the space looking for real and promising projects, which can be a chance to build a successful business on the long term, when u take it serious. It's not about launching an ICO and just try to make some money with sort of an idea. If you want to be successful as an ICO, you need to have a good promise, product, service and launching a token must fit with your business. One way or another, IPO's, venture capital and other fundraising methods will be digitalized sooner or later and i think tokenizing shares or securities are not bad at all.
September 07, 2018, 11:01:27 AM
Unfortunately, its a sad truth in the ICO market. I was even expecting that the percentage should be higher than that but surprised that people still trust ICOs or they are deceived in putting their money for ICOs which shows the awareness about scam ICOs is still a battle that needs to be renewed to achieve the intended result where only the serious ones get to raise funds to finance their viable projects.
The implication of this is simple, people who engage in activities like this are actually causing more harm to the entire crypto market. PWC is a reputable organisation, the population in which they are interpreting data from is representative enough (above 4000), the result even proof what active crypto followers had in mind just that they don't have the figures. It only points to the direction that, crypto cannot be trusted to flourish on its own with the micro-managing influence of people in government and that is why most of the policies that are against the real purpose of crypto go through with little or no resistance which is not speaking well for everyone.
The implication of this is simple, people who engage in activities like this are actually causing more harm to the entire crypto market. PWC is a reputable organisation, the population in which they are interpreting data from is representative enough (above 4000), the result even proof what active crypto followers had in mind just that they don't have the figures. It only points to the direction that, crypto cannot be trusted to flourish on its own with the micro-managing influence of people in government and that is why most of the policies that are against the real purpose of crypto go through with little or no resistance which is not speaking well for everyone.
September 07, 2018, 10:10:32 AM
Is it really surprising though? I reckon that it's completely expected.
These projects are essentially made for the sole purpose of raising money. Once they've done that, most of the ICOs will just end their development or just stall with no progress being made.
The 44% surprised me big time, I would have expected no more than 10% to be left.These projects are essentially made for the sole purpose of raising money. Once they've done that, most of the ICOs will just end their development or just stall with no progress being made.
I can only assume they keep the project open for more money grabbing, either in that project or in the next ICO they started.
What I'm more curious about is how many of those 3500 ICOs and $12 billion produced anything real and worthwhile. If be surprised if it's even 10 projects.
September 07, 2018, 09:54:36 AM
Still need to specify in the statistics that 70% of the coins did not reach the exchange, and of those 30% who had a listing, the price on the exchange fell and did not rise above the ISO price of 80%. The figures are given without analysis from the air, just to show the whole complexity of the situation.
September 07, 2018, 08:50:58 AM
They've measured activity as Twitter account activity - I've expected something like Github activity.
Only Github counts so they should have at least measured it but this survey is an outsiders view. How crypto looks to them from 20,000 feet up as they pass over in their private jets.
The people with their hands dirty on the ground know what counts to make a working network and twitter does not transmit anything securely as we see constantly with the simple scams that pop up and are apparently so hard for them to put down.
The problem imo is there is not enough success and real world feedback on that. We are still mostly in speculation and talking about possible success. Of course projects that built solid github development would matter if they had bigger numbers, maybe it just takes time for this to be the case
September 07, 2018, 05:44:56 AM
You can also conclude that half numbers of ICO was scam. It also gives the idea that ICO nowadays is not profitable because of its success rate and legitamacy of it.
Even that number is generous. A study said that 80% of them were scams. Being active for 120 days after the end of fundraising definitely doesn't mean they're legitimate. The way the whole ICO thing is set up, it's just way too easy for the people behind them to disappear that you can never really ignore that possibility no matter how far in you are.
We don't have much data to work with, but a quick look on the graph says they've been getting less effective. I guess awareness is starting to catch up with them. I certainly hope that trend continues until only the legitimate ones are able to secure funding.
September 07, 2018, 04:50:50 AM
They've measured activity as Twitter account activity - I've expected something like Github activity. I've seen a lot of project that turn into scams after many months, this can be explained by the fact that they use their social media and news presence to manipulate the markets of their token to get even more gains than simply exit scamming. They can get tokens by selling tokens to themselves during the ICO, so there won't be any suspicions if they were having issued tokens, and then pump the market with the news and dump their tokens.
But it's crazy how ICO's are still profitable, according to this research - even if you get scammed dozen times, one profitable ICO can cover all the losses and leave you with a profit. The market is really delusional if these startups with no product, no proof of concept manage to grow 100-200% just on tweets alone.
But it's crazy how ICO's are still profitable, according to this research - even if you get scammed dozen times, one profitable ICO can cover all the losses and leave you with a profit. The market is really delusional if these startups with no product, no proof of concept manage to grow 100-200% just on tweets alone.
September 07, 2018, 04:43:30 AM
You can also conclude that half numbers of ICO was scam. It also gives the idea that ICO nowadays is not profitable because of its success rate and legitamacy of it.
September 07, 2018, 04:20:19 AM
honestly, I don't know people who really make money on investments in ICO, only Bounty
September 06, 2018, 07:17:38 PM
I confirmed it to look at the data related I felt increasing bad ICO project from last half year. I think the project after the ICO collapsed gradually from the latter half of last year gradually increases. Because the result is that most of token price lower than ICO. I think the one of reason for weak market recently due to such a cheap ICO.
September 06, 2018, 06:44:06 PM
120 days is really not that long a time. Its possible the ICO might take longer then this to actually produce the working business that was outlined in the original project. I imagine it could take a year or two in some cases, that seems reasonable.
This is a statistic taken as a very rough sample for activity and maybe the most important part is about the fund raising itself, the trend being less startups with a peak matching BTC highs
This is a statistic taken as a very rough sample for activity and maybe the most important part is about the fund raising itself, the trend being less startups with a peak matching BTC highs
September 06, 2018, 05:01:12 PM
This is such a bad news to hear but in turns what is going to happen is people will learn their lesson. I hope good project will have luck on succeeding and providing some values to their costumers.
This will be an important warning for investors. Limit risks and losses. Unfortunately for these failures. September 06, 2018, 02:39:46 PM
Is it really surprising though? I reckon that it's completely expected.
These projects are essentially made for the sole purpose of raising money. Once they've done that, most of the ICOs will just end their development or just stall with no progress being made. After all, most projects on the market right now have no purpose whatsoever and are just repeating ideas that were being done by others in the past.
They know fully that they don't care about the success of their project, even though they claimed to do so when they pitched their idea. Also, don't forget that they have no responsibilities for investors, unlike a security, because a token is only something used on their network, not a share in their company. That's why everyone needs to be careful when investing in these, or just avoid them altogether.
These projects are essentially made for the sole purpose of raising money. Once they've done that, most of the ICOs will just end their development or just stall with no progress being made. After all, most projects on the market right now have no purpose whatsoever and are just repeating ideas that were being done by others in the past.
They know fully that they don't care about the success of their project, even though they claimed to do so when they pitched their idea. Also, don't forget that they have no responsibilities for investors, unlike a security, because a token is only something used on their network, not a share in their company. That's why everyone needs to be careful when investing in these, or just avoid them altogether.
September 06, 2018, 11:10:56 AM
I have a feeling that if we expand the period to 240 days the percentage would double also.
There is a lot of ways you can keep your project 'active' by buying subscribers and posts just to keep the price of the tokens high so you can dump a lot more, on top of the already scammed investment funds.
You abandoned decentralization when you chose a project with a 'team".
That "team" and the "devs" are running the project, decentralization is dead at that point, no matter how open source is the project, they are the ones pulling the strings.
There is a lot of ways you can keep your project 'active' by buying subscribers and posts just to keep the price of the tokens high so you can dump a lot more, on top of the already scammed investment funds.
What matters to Crypto World is decentralization. Private Companies don't belong here.
You abandoned decentralization when you chose a project with a 'team".
That "team" and the "devs" are running the project, decentralization is dead at that point, no matter how open source is the project, they are the ones pulling the strings.
September 06, 2018, 11:01:21 AM
That is a very interesting article and great study done by them. I know the study is perfect but the results are not very good for the ICO investors like us. This was already known that more than 80% of the ICO's are getting scammed but this was never known that these most o the ICO are getting inactive after the 120 days of the period. This tells us that ICO which start with full speed and great development plans are always ending up in worst ways. The timeline, how they researched it is ambiguous but to be honest this data can be trusted blindly.
The only thing we dont know yet is, why they go scam after that specific period or whether it is just the coincidence that more than 40% of them are going scam or inactive after the 120 days??
We do need more data as like, what kind of ideas are behind those ICO projects, which are team members and what is the models.
The only thing we dont know yet is, why they go scam after that specific period or whether it is just the coincidence that more than 40% of them are going scam or inactive after the 120 days??
We do need more data as like, what kind of ideas are behind those ICO projects, which are team members and what is the models.
September 06, 2018, 10:39:36 AM
When you see an ICO scammed investors and disappeared, it's clear that the project isn't active anymore. (Sorry, but I was lazy to upload it somewhere to post here.) It's both regular and related-blockchain startup. But talking about privacy there are a lot of projects that don't protect privacy somewhere in their products. How many projects aren't open source? If you still use it because you don't have alternatives then it can still be sustainable.
If a project is abandoned after 120 days it is long enough. You rarely see a team coming back suddenly and says 'Hello, we're back..."
If a project is abandoned after 120 days it is long enough. You rarely see a team coming back suddenly and says 'Hello, we're back..."
September 06, 2018, 03:45:03 AM
How do they define whether project is active or not? It's not stated in the abstract and I don't feel like creating an account just to download the full paper. 120 days after ICO completion doesn't seem long enough to jump into conclusion that devs abandoned it and run off.
This is such a bad news to hear but in turns what is going to happen is people will learn their lesson.
? The average returns are still enormously high as compered to traditional investments. That means you could just be throwing equal amount in every ICO without any research whatsoever and still make huge profit. That's insane and cannot last.
Jump to: