Topic: ALL Initial Coin Offerings are Trash - page 16. (Read 22311 times)
It is because of such disappointing statistics that I do not recommend that you invest your money in startups on the cryptocurrency market.
only a few ICO can be categorized like that, but there are still ico that can be successful and can now become famous and increasingly popular, for example binance, binance exchange places are also created from ICO and can be a place of exchange that has the highest volume every day.
so, not all ICO are trash.
so, not all ICO are trash.
The problem is deeper than just being scams, because scams are often double entendres. Scams come in all shapes and sizes, most think of scam as providing nothing in return for your investment, IE devs running away. But, this is not necessarily true in all cases. Most coins that we see today, belong on kickstarter or some other crowdfunding-based website (or require no funding at all in some cases), not having to do with cryptocurrency in any shape or form. Project that we see are start-ups looking to gain some sort of investment, without truly fully understanding what crypto is, and how this space functions.
MVP's often are developed to serve only 1 function for a crypto. Why does this crypto need to exist if it's only function is for this platform alone (often as a payment processor to purchase X good) and for trading/investing in? Essentially, this is where the perception of security tokens arise from. Because, if the token/crypto has no real function outside of a specific small niche job, then there truly was never no purpose for it to begin with. What i'm trying to say is that again, projects only enter ICOs to secure funding for their project, and to conduct an ICO you need a cryptocurrency. Well, guess what, it's quite easy to incorporate or utilize an ERC-20 or any other token, into ANY business or project, fulfilling the definition of ICO.
Thus, what most view ICOs as is investment vehicles into businesses, hoping to return a profit on a non-equity based security. This is the problem that crypto ultimately faces today, because investments into ICOs is so (or was) prevalent, and the majority do not understand the difference or what they've even invested in, regulations are going to police the entire industry (to whatever extent they can), in order to project the oblivious and clueless investor.
All this leads up to what the definition and perception of ICO is currently. There are still coins out there worthy of an investment, because they are building doorways with expandable blockchains, enhancing on technology, fundamentally furthering progress of the crypto-space. But, the majority of investors will never be able to dictate or even find such investments, and by the time they hit the markets, they are perceived as every other shitcoin/scamcoin. The only thing that truly matters for the average person in this space, is how well the coin functions on the markets post-ico, essentially the demand (or perception of).
MVP's often are developed to serve only 1 function for a crypto. Why does this crypto need to exist if it's only function is for this platform alone (often as a payment processor to purchase X good) and for trading/investing in? Essentially, this is where the perception of security tokens arise from. Because, if the token/crypto has no real function outside of a specific small niche job, then there truly was never no purpose for it to begin with. What i'm trying to say is that again, projects only enter ICOs to secure funding for their project, and to conduct an ICO you need a cryptocurrency. Well, guess what, it's quite easy to incorporate or utilize an ERC-20 or any other token, into ANY business or project, fulfilling the definition of ICO.
Thus, what most view ICOs as is investment vehicles into businesses, hoping to return a profit on a non-equity based security. This is the problem that crypto ultimately faces today, because investments into ICOs is so (or was) prevalent, and the majority do not understand the difference or what they've even invested in, regulations are going to police the entire industry (to whatever extent they can), in order to project the oblivious and clueless investor.
All this leads up to what the definition and perception of ICO is currently. There are still coins out there worthy of an investment, because they are building doorways with expandable blockchains, enhancing on technology, fundamentally furthering progress of the crypto-space. But, the majority of investors will never be able to dictate or even find such investments, and by the time they hit the markets, they are perceived as every other shitcoin/scamcoin. The only thing that truly matters for the average person in this space, is how well the coin functions on the markets post-ico, essentially the demand (or perception of).
There's a lot of scam ICOs that's why even the good ones are affected. People are loosing trust because of being scammed and are afraid to loose more money. Not all are trash. They are also affected by the drop of the market. Some ICOs didn't reached even soft cap, but that doesn't prove its scam. Hopefully bitcoin value will recover.
There's a lot of posts in this section "ICOs will come back", "Some ICOs are scams", "Should I do ICOs". These all contain the implication that Initial Coin Offerings are fine and dandy.
What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?
The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?
The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.
It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.
Resources:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams
What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?
The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?
The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.
It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.
Resources:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams
The point is that there was no regulation in this sphere. But now more and more countries are applying regulation for ICOs and this surely will lead to decline in scam projects. Besides STOs are coming to the stage, they would be controlled by SEC and have minimum risk to invest in. Soon this sphere will get very investment-attractive again, just a little bit patience...
Personally I disagree with this topic, I wouldn't say all initial coin offering are trash, because here are still reputable projects in the midst of the bad ones.
If all of ico do you think junk means the bounty hunter in your opinion is garbage. because we know that bounty hunters rely heavily on ico, although not all of them work well ... but this is the crypto world so believe that not all ico are rubbish and every bounty hunter certainly has his own way before following ico.
There's a lot of posts in this section "ICOs will come back", "Some ICOs are scams", "Should I do ICOs". These all contain the implication that Initial Coin Offerings are fine and dandy.
What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?
The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?
The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.
It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.
Resources:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams
What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?
The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?
The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.
It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.
Resources:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams
I may believe in your claim but I guess ICO's are essential in making the market alive. ICO give chances to investors to have their shares on their platform. They need millions to run their project that's why they are crowdfunding to forsee where their project will go to whether or not the public will patronize their product.
not all, there are some who have high quality. this is only because the market is down so it looks like ico is not profitable.
it is true that almost 95% of projects currently are garbage, but at least there are still good projects.
it is true that almost 95% of projects currently are garbage, but at least there are still good projects.
not all ICOs are rubbish, because there are many proven ICO projects that are now running according to the roadmap and indeed many ICO projects are just boasting, until now the ICO project that can be trusted is the market exchange project even though many have been realized, it still runs smoothly and proven.
Whether the ICO is trash or not depends on its creators, ideas and implementation. Nobody stops anyone to try realize their ideas, just as no one stops anyone to invest in them.
It is true that there are a lot of worthless ICOs, but that does not mean that they are all hopeless. There are some very interesting projects, one of them is MyTVchain - see my signature.
It is true that there are a lot of worthless ICOs, but that does not mean that they are all hopeless. There are some very interesting projects, one of them is MyTVchain - see my signature.
indeed there are a lot of shit projects right now but that doesn't mean ICO is a scam. we just need to be more careful in choosing projects. I think there are still a number of projects that deserve to be supported because the project is quality.
Joining an ICO is no longer profitable and you will either be scammed or your funds value will immediately go down to -90% once their token listed to an exchange. Their discount offerings during ICO might be convincing but you will surely regret it after a month or two. Look on some altcoins that we thought have potential like Sirin Labs, the price are getting lower and their founder is now on the hotseat.
indeed, all altcoins are falling but this is natural because currently there are so many people working as manipulating the market so that the altcoin that we believe has high investment potential will go down and it is very difficult to go back to better prices like before. by waiting it will be an opportunity for us to get a big profit.
There's a lot of posts in this section "ICOs will come back", "Some ICOs are scams", "Should I do ICOs". These all contain the implication that Initial Coin Offerings are fine and dandy.
What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?
The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?
The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.
It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.
Resources:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams
Todays crypto world is indeed sad. so much scam project keep on appearing without notice, making so many people got trapped in it. The bad side form it is, the scam makes people trust on crypto market to be vanish, due to they got scammed over and over again, that they would stop investing in crypto. What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?
The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?
The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.
It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.
Resources:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams
I think that many ICOs today very much resemble projects that are formed on crowdfunding, as a result of ICO, this is probably crowdfunding. But for some reason, many projects do not make any dividends for investors.
They are not trash or scam, the falling ICO trend is combined with the current market conditions and it is sad that people are not investing in a lot of great projects at the moment. Just wait and you will see that the ICOs trend would recover.
You can't say all initial coin offering are trash, though some might be scam which is right but not all, some have proven to be genuine and unique. let us stop generalising . People still make profit from ICO.
Yes, of course there are mostly scam. But there are also quality projects. For example, just check icodrops. There are a lot of interesting ICOs for investing. You all want to make easy money in short term but big money are in long-term.
Though you are right by saying 80% are scam but not all,then coming to raising fund,not all dev can afford to develop a project with their money because they don't have enough and that is the essence of ICO just that we have too many scam project out there.
Jump to: