I would not say that 80% of ICO is a fraud this percentage is likely to be less, but troubled ICO is still a lot!
In addition to 80 percent, there are still projects where developers stop development after entering the exchange. I would also call them scammers because they do not fulfill their promises to develop their product. 
Topic: 80% of ICOs are Scams - page 9. (Read 12238 times)
I would not say that 80% of ICO is a fraud this percentage is likely to be less, but troubled ICO is still a lot!
It's very unexpected but that's the truth, most ico scam they just want to earn money for free, it's very difficult to choose which one is right, for example from the many bounty projects that you follow only a few are successful, it applies also to investors.
this is something we must accept because we cannot deny this reality. so for anyone if you want to invest in ICO, you have to be careful and be more careful in checking ICO to minimize errors in choosing ICO.and it is true that what you are saying is that the number of failed ICOs is also comparable to a failed prize because I also found a lot of failed Gifts.
As written earlier, the states are trying to take control of the ICO, what would have been less of a scam? It's like they do not care about anyone save you. For them, this is the financial flow that everyone wants to manage, after which millions will fly to the treasury.
Yes, there are a lot of scam projects. However, there are very cool projects. Just have to look for ideas that somehow change the industry and affect life. And do not waste time on projects that create the next crypto exchange.
Yes, there are a lot of scam projects. However, there are very cool projects. Just have to look for ideas that somehow change the industry and affect life. And do not waste time on projects that create the next crypto exchange.
It is true,majority of icos are scam and only some of them are worthy to invest in. Well,develop your expertise and your profit factor will be higher
Saw this study on twitter... https://twitter.com/Zeex_me/status/978981735101878272
I've seen a lot of people asking about how many legit ICOs there are, so I thought I'd share
Quote from the article: "The study begins by breaking down ICOs into 6 groups: Scam, Failed, Gone Dead, Dwindling, Promising, Successful. “On the basis of the above classification,” they wrote, “we found that approximately 81% of ICO’s were Scams, ~6% Failed, ~5% had Gone Dead, and ~8% went on to trade on a exchange.”
"Scams were defined by researchers as “Any project that expressed availability of [an] ICO investment (through a website publishing, ANN thread, or social media posting with a contribution address), did not have/had no intention of fulfilling project development duties with the funds, and/or was deemed by the community (message boards, website or other online information) to be a scam.”
DYOR people ...
I've seen a lot of people asking about how many legit ICOs there are, so I thought I'd share
Quote from the article: "The study begins by breaking down ICOs into 6 groups: Scam, Failed, Gone Dead, Dwindling, Promising, Successful. “On the basis of the above classification,” they wrote, “we found that approximately 81% of ICO’s were Scams, ~6% Failed, ~5% had Gone Dead, and ~8% went on to trade on a exchange.”
"Scams were defined by researchers as “Any project that expressed availability of [an] ICO investment (through a website publishing, ANN thread, or social media posting with a contribution address), did not have/had no intention of fulfilling project development duties with the funds, and/or was deemed by the community (message boards, website or other online information) to be a scam.”
DYOR people ...
I thought 90%. you know just to set your expectations straight ahead. We have to be prepared for anything even in all circumstances the worst possible scenario just for the heartbreaks and to manage the risk.
To some reasonable extent it might be true. It is up to you to do a serious background check up of the project you want to invest in. So you sont fall victim of scam.
It's very unexpected but that's the truth, most ico scam they just want to earn money for free, it's very difficult to choose which one is right, for example from the many bounty projects that you follow only a few are successful, it applies also to investors.
This study is wrong, not all the 90% ICOs are scam. You can say 50% ICOs are scam. The rest are either failed to continue their operation due to the volatility of the market or they failed to raise enough fund to start their project. So, basically, they are not scam.
Saw this study on twitter... https://twitter.com/Zeex_me/status/978981735101878272
I've seen a lot of people asking about how many legit ICOs there are, so I thought I'd share
Quote from the article: "The study begins by breaking down ICOs into 6 groups: Scam, Failed, Gone Dead, Dwindling, Promising, Successful. “On the basis of the above classification,” they wrote, “we found that approximately 81% of ICO’s were Scams, ~6% Failed, ~5% had Gone Dead, and ~8% went on to trade on a exchange.”
"Scams were defined by researchers as “Any project that expressed availability of [an] ICO investment (through a website publishing, ANN thread, or social media posting with a contribution address), did not have/had no intention of fulfilling project development duties with the funds, and/or was deemed by the community (message boards, website or other online information) to be a scam.”
DYOR people ...
I've seen a lot of people asking about how many legit ICOs there are, so I thought I'd share
Quote from the article: "The study begins by breaking down ICOs into 6 groups: Scam, Failed, Gone Dead, Dwindling, Promising, Successful. “On the basis of the above classification,” they wrote, “we found that approximately 81% of ICO’s were Scams, ~6% Failed, ~5% had Gone Dead, and ~8% went on to trade on a exchange.”
"Scams were defined by researchers as “Any project that expressed availability of [an] ICO investment (through a website publishing, ANN thread, or social media posting with a contribution address), did not have/had no intention of fulfilling project development duties with the funds, and/or was deemed by the community (message boards, website or other online information) to be a scam.”
DYOR people ...
I would say 50% of scammers, very sad, such projects exist. And besides, their number is growing every day.
That said, there were too many scams that made the red market and investors affected by scams always campaigned negatively about crypto, and I was sure that the main factor that made the market difficult to recover was the many scam projects.
Its not hidden from people that more than 80%(actually) ICO are scams. They come in the market with a lot of promises and then either the are not able to deliver or just scam the investors and vanish overnight. Only 5% or less ICO's are actually able to deliver and stay alive.
Hence, we need to be very careful with all ICO's after all it's our hard earned money.
Hence, we need to be very careful with all ICO's after all it's our hard earned money.
There are many good ICOS I have ever participated in and they have real products. But not all of them were able to enter the market today, everyone should understand where they are.
I think that there is also the fault of investors who have invested and continue to invest in projects, not even knowing what they are doing, what they develop, but only listened to the opinion of bloggers.
true because the progress of the ICO is getting more and more scams and coins scam but there are still good and successful ones. so if those who want to start investing in the ICO are better to carefully read and understand the vision and mission of the ICO
Its a well know fact that 80% of ICOs are scam and the funniest part is that the percentage of scam ICO keeps increasing everyday because we don't have institutions or bodies that regulates ICOs.
It's not a secret for a long time, most crypto projects are scammers. I would not even say 80%, and more than 95% are scammers. The goal is simple, collecting money and disappearing. Investors themselves are to blame for this growth of scammers.
There are several websites can help you to know new ICO's. Some of them display ranking and rating what the best ICO but wait, don't too fast the take conclusion. Sometimes ranking or rating build just for blowing up your mind. Best practice to filter it make sure credibility of the website and make comparison to other websites.
I think this is a very large percentage you wrote, of course scammers are present but not in such quantity
Even the higher percent was called many times. In reality, no one knows this information. An ICO might seem to you some perfect project but the times flies, and it turns out to be a simple scam again.
every year , the scammers ico becomes more and more, and this trend scares me . you need to be careful
A certain smart contracts developer has a thread here, Developer’s advices to ICO investor and according to him and I quote, "Out of every 100 projects 99 is a fraud, or a scam, as we used to call it."
Quoted below is the full text...
Quoted below is the full text...
Quote
Hello, dear investors and everyone who reads this.
Being a developer of smart contracts, I cannot stand aside of the current lawlessness in the ICO market.
Out of every 100 projects 99 is a fraud, or a scam, as we used to call it.
Please, read the following advices as a guide to verification of every ICO:
1. At the start of pre-ICO team should have a contract for automatic assets transfer, that contains a written set of rules for early investors – not on towel, not in the speaking form, but written in the smart-contract. Otherwise, collected assets can just fall in the pockets of founders, or they can change rules of the game in the middle of act – there are many examples.
2. The contract for pre-ICO should be a part of a bigger contract on ICO and do not be different tokens – it is unsafe form a standpoint of vulnerability and withdrawal of funds.
3. The contract for pre-ICO, and then on ICO should have a lower and upper barrier - if it does not – the team does not know what it wants - just a scam.
4. The contract for ICO should have escrow of the funds, received as a result of placement - it can be a frieze or multiSig with a voting condition. This will give you a guarantee against the expenditure of funds earlier than the team completed the previous stage.
5. The contract should have indisputable return of funds condition, in case of not reaching the lower limit of the collected pool. It is in the contract and not in the white book, if it is not – move on, it’s just a scum.
6. All contracts must be posted on GitHub, this will enable third-party developers to check the contract for the vulnerability, if the team has not taken care and before the ICO has not posted a bounty on the vulnerability.
7. The contract must specify the conditions for the team and for the bounty’s for vulnerability.
8. The contract must specify the conditions for not traded tokens - with clearly defined deadlines.
This post is about having a standard. Everything in the end should have a standard - and together we can achieve it. If you do not invest in teams that do not adhere to basic security standards - they just won’t be able to steal your money.
I hope for a dialogue and a healthy discussion.
Being a developer of smart contracts, I cannot stand aside of the current lawlessness in the ICO market.
Out of every 100 projects 99 is a fraud, or a scam, as we used to call it.
Please, read the following advices as a guide to verification of every ICO:
1. At the start of pre-ICO team should have a contract for automatic assets transfer, that contains a written set of rules for early investors – not on towel, not in the speaking form, but written in the smart-contract. Otherwise, collected assets can just fall in the pockets of founders, or they can change rules of the game in the middle of act – there are many examples.
2. The contract for pre-ICO should be a part of a bigger contract on ICO and do not be different tokens – it is unsafe form a standpoint of vulnerability and withdrawal of funds.
3. The contract for pre-ICO, and then on ICO should have a lower and upper barrier - if it does not – the team does not know what it wants - just a scam.
4. The contract for ICO should have escrow of the funds, received as a result of placement - it can be a frieze or multiSig with a voting condition. This will give you a guarantee against the expenditure of funds earlier than the team completed the previous stage.
5. The contract should have indisputable return of funds condition, in case of not reaching the lower limit of the collected pool. It is in the contract and not in the white book, if it is not – move on, it’s just a scum.
6. All contracts must be posted on GitHub, this will enable third-party developers to check the contract for the vulnerability, if the team has not taken care and before the ICO has not posted a bounty on the vulnerability.
7. The contract must specify the conditions for the team and for the bounty’s for vulnerability.
8. The contract must specify the conditions for not traded tokens - with clearly defined deadlines.
This post is about having a standard. Everything in the end should have a standard - and together we can achieve it. If you do not invest in teams that do not adhere to basic security standards - they just won’t be able to steal your money.
I hope for a dialogue and a healthy discussion.
Jump to: