Topic: bad developers have tarnished ICO! - page 5. (Read 718 times)
The erc20 network platform is very vulnerable. I mean, someone can easily access or create their own token through this platform, but what's difficult is developing it. so there is no point if they make tokens but cannot be developed properly it will become junk tokens, so the essence of this problem is actually true that the developer is the main role in a project while investor funds are also important, because without investor funds the project cannot be built accordingly with their road map.
that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
Scammers are increasingly discrediting the Ethereum platform for smart contracts. Already for many people the word ICO is associated only with scammers rather than making money. That is why so many investors began to attract those projects where the possibility of fraud is reduced to almost zero.
In fact it is very easy to generate tokens on the ETH series so anyone can issue their own coins, which is why there are many junk and scam projects. I think we should not invest in ICO at the present time.
I agree with you on the idea that the process of creating smart contract is very simple which has increased the number of abandoned projects, but I doubt if people still invest on ICO considering the nature of the market and the influence of fake projects.
in this case I think some investors still invest in ico but if the ico has a good working map and the products they offer are already on the market. so the risk is smaller because the token is already listed on the exchange. on the one hand I think investors know better what they have to do to avoid loss.
Those developers were never meant to be good in the first place, they are just after the money like you said, and that is why some people are now turning the system to scam people, but I would not only blame the developers also.
I know that the platform has been designed to accommodate everyone because it is a decentralized system, but now that we have this situation, are you saying that ethereum cannot bend on their policy if they don’t bend on their policy or technology, they will lose their respect and relevance to binance chain that is doing due diligent before accepting any project.
I also blame the investors too who would not take their time to investigate a project well before they commit their money into it, many investors’ rushes into investment a lot.
I know that the platform has been designed to accommodate everyone because it is a decentralized system, but now that we have this situation, are you saying that ethereum cannot bend on their policy if they don’t bend on their policy or technology, they will lose their respect and relevance to binance chain that is doing due diligent before accepting any project.
I also blame the investors too who would not take their time to investigate a project well before they commit their money into it, many investors’ rushes into investment a lot.
I think it is not like this, new projects such as ETH now a day need a lot of dev work and money to spend, and create token in ETH blockchain more easy and less costly.
that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
I agree that the failure of the project to reach the target roadmap is the responsibility of the developer team. A lot happens after the sales of tokens reach the target, the developer team starts to not focus on the project and fails to produce a product or even starts to leave the project and create a new project with the aim of raising more funds
In fact it is very easy to generate tokens on the ETH series so anyone can issue their own coins, which is why there are many junk and scam projects. I think we should not invest in ICO at the present time.
I agree with you on the idea that the process of creating smart contract is very simple which has increased the number of abandoned projects, but I doubt if people still invest on ICO considering the nature of the market and the influence of fake projects.
In fact it is very easy to generate tokens on the ETH series so anyone can issue their own coins, which is why there are many junk and scam projects. I think we should not invest in ICO at the present time.
that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
I agree that the failure of the project to reach the target roadmap is the responsibility of the developer team. A lot happens after the sales of tokens reach the target, the developer team starts to not focus on the project and fails to produce a product or even starts to leave the project and create a new project with the aim of raising more funds
That's right. Bad developers ha e their own negative roles but theirs is not as bad effects as that of scammers that conduct ICOs to dupe unsuspecting investors.
that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
The good old days of ICO you tried to paint here was the pre-2018 years. I witnessed a bit of it and that was a period most ICOs gave great ROI. There was hardly any coin that got listed on the CMC at that time for less than $1, no matter how lowly it was sold at ICO. It was a glorious time before fraudulent devs and their teams spoilt everything. It was this era that even gave rise to the market hitting above $800billion in cap. I am sure some people here don't even know there was a time the market got to that level, seeing it now at below $300b. I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
If after a year and you have been scammed you are still investing in ICO, you have yourself to blame, you are not learning how to distinguish the right project to a wrong one, if you cannot distinguish a good project from a true one, then it's better to not invest in ICO anymore and just concentrate in trading or investing in old coins.
that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.
Scammers are increasingly discrediting the Ethereum platform for smart contracts. Already for many people the word ICO is associated only with scammers rather than making money. That is why so many investors began to attract those projects where the possibility of fraud is reduced to almost zero.
Especially the deployment of Ethereum based tokens. Scammers have used the already existing Ethereum blockchain to deploy countless scan projects. I think this thing should be regulated to curtail the rate of scam going on. Dapps can be verified before they get deployed on the blockchain.
the platform is not to blame for this, and it is very precise, that all projects depend on the strategy, and the skills of the developer in running the project they founded. Well, there are many things that affect it, one of them is a lack of experience and a weak team.
many projects have things like that and make ICO look bad. maybe some ICO errors or the definition of a successful project can be seen in this article.
https://applicature.com/blog/token-offerings/ico-success-or-fiasco-mistakes-that-matter
however, a team that has good concepts, experiences, strategies, and responsibilities will make ICO better.
many projects have things like that and make ICO look bad. maybe some ICO errors or the definition of a successful project can be seen in this article.
https://applicature.com/blog/token-offerings/ico-success-or-fiasco-mistakes-that-matter
however, a team that has good concepts, experiences, strategies, and responsibilities will make ICO better.
The reputation of ICOs now are really bad unlike before. I do have an erc 20 tokens in my MEW but they are useless and no value. Creating tokens that are left behind by investors and the team will always become coins that have no used at all. There are thousands of erc20 tokens but only few has an impact and use and has still surviving in the crypto market. The truth is that well established coins are the main choice of most of the investors.
the fact is that tokens that cannot be developed properly will end up being junk, because I also have the same token generated from the ERC20 platform and it doesn't even have a sale value. At present the ICO reputation has been destroyed and many developers have abandoned the projects they have run.
more than bad developers it is market slow down which caused most of the coins to see 98 drop down in prices hopefully with this bull run we expect ico prices to come back
Team and developer background One of the important points for the success of a project, if the developer does not have a good background or does not have a positive experience in managing the previous project, I doubt that. in this case it is true that bad developers cannot run their programs correctly.
yeah right, I think all ICO programs are successful because of the good development team. and most ICO programs today where the development team is dishonest, they take the opportunity to get rich in an improper way. yes, they took away project funds that should have been accumulated for the program development process. my friend is one of the victims of the scam team, he experienced it twice and who knows where his money was taken away.
ICO projects built using the ERC20 ethereum platform are currently experiencing a setback, because many projects are moving to newer platforms by mainnet. actually the ERC20 platform is very good if it is well developed. The developers who hold the ICO at this time only prioritize revenue and override the function of the project being built. There are also many ICO SCAMs that make investors fooled and suffer a lot of losses. ICO is increasingly fading and replaced with IEO, because IEO is considered safer and more effective in the sale of tokens.
Personally, I don't think projects moving to mainnet is a bad thing for Ethereum. They'll always be needing ETH later on when they want to test dapps (and they will always be using Ethereum for mature platform testing). And if all projects use ETH platform to launch, so be it. One day when 2.0 is good enough they may just decide to stay and not migrate.
I really don't see how migration is a bad thing or how it is related in any way to ICO reputation.
Jump to: