More like people need to stop buying into retarded ICOs.
Definitely. I don't really feel too bad about someone complaining about getting ripped off from some 1.5 star shady ICO with a crappy site, some amibitious use case, and no development.
Topic: Devs need to fuck off with their useless ico scam coins! (Read 3056 times)
Definitely. I don't really feel too bad about someone complaining about getting ripped off from some 1.5 star shady ICO with a crappy site, some amibitious use case, and no development.
of course but more to blame are the imbeciles giving their btc for this worthless crap, these people are encouraging hoards more of these ico scammers to arrive daily with more stupid ideas that have no reason to be related to crypto.
even worse is the fact these same fools have infested this board and made it a nightmare to locate any information of real substance
the only good thing about it all is that the REAL projects have been missed and actually driven down in satoshi terms, so in a way all the noobs talking about the latest hyped crap that is doomed to fail are stopping most new funds finding the gems here so far.
there are probably only a handful of real projects here that are worth risking btc on but unless you have been following crypto for years and have been following the progress you have small chance of locating them in the sea of shit that is here now.
even worse is the fact these same fools have infested this board and made it a nightmare to locate any information of real substance
the only good thing about it all is that the REAL projects have been missed and actually driven down in satoshi terms, so in a way all the noobs talking about the latest hyped crap that is doomed to fail are stopping most new funds finding the gems here so far.
there are probably only a handful of real projects here that are worth risking btc on but unless you have been following crypto for years and have been following the progress you have small chance of locating them in the sea of shit that is here now.
How is this vote making a difference? The awareness and rejection are already present and people do not need any more reason to fuel their anger, only practical solutions.
yeah you are right.
but, are you OK to make this post at this location.
becareful dude, don't just make a spam post like this.
is possible to baned your account.
but, are you OK to make this post at this location.
becareful dude, don't just make a spam post like this.
is possible to baned your account.
Nowadays, ICO are becoming more popular. There are a lot of promising ICO on the market, but in my opinion one of the most promising ones in our day is the project Vireo. It’s really cool ICO! Check it!
More like people need to stop buying into retarded ICOs.
Exactly,I have bought into some but most of them are complete BS, so just not going to bother now. If nobody buys into them then they will eventually stop but them the promise of a quick profit will probably keep people coming.
I just don't think I can recall any ICO besides NXT that made people money. I wasn't really even discussing whether or not an ICO is a scam in itself because there are and have been Coins that have done ICO's which were not scams. My reasoning was that for whatever ICO is held, there would need to be atleast that amount or even double that in future funding in order to pay it off where ICO investors could make profit and the people buying on the market could also make profit.
The NXT IPO was definitely the most successful IPO in history but there have been many other examples of successful IPOs.
I wrote a thread several months ago asking if there were any failed IPOs:
The NXT IPO created millionaires from those who invested 1 BTC. Those who had invested in the Qora IPO have seen a return of over ten times their initial investment. The Reddcoin IPO also turned out to be quite successful for its initial investors.
So, my question is, have there ever been any failed (not scam) IPOs? By "failed", I don't mean obvious scams like Stackcoin where the developer ran away with the IPO and never released a product. Rather, I mean situations where the price failed to rise after launch and those who invested in the IPO made a loss on their initial investment.
So, my question is, have there ever been any failed (not scam) IPOs? By "failed", I don't mean obvious scams like Stackcoin where the developer ran away with the IPO and never released a product. Rather, I mean situations where the price failed to rise after launch and those who invested in the IPO made a loss on their initial investment.
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/examples-of-failed-coin-ipos-885343
Other than Qora and Reddcoin, there was also Mastercoin which made a 20 times return for its investors and those who sent coins to Counterparty's proof-of-burn address made fairly large profits as well.
The way the ICO's are done are flawed as well because if it doesn't sell out then the remaining Coins are sent to an unspendable address and that gives it an inflated marketcap and fucks up the Block explorer.
That depends on the IPO. Some IPOs such as NXT distributed the coins as a proportion of the total invested.
Expenses you are referring to are not correct, because you will also need to pay for github, domain and hosting. We are talking to use trusted companies with stable services, not your old computer in the basement. 
Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same.
Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same.I have never paid for github or domains, hosting is only needed until the network can run itself so it still doesn't really tell me why you need to have an ICO.
A coin is not only a working network. It needs to have some "face" too, and that requires some services and payments. There is no need to discuss this further, because everyone has their own opinion and what he needs for his project. We are also going out of the subject of the thread.
The reason why I kinda approve ICO is because I am seeing it as a real investment in the real world. Kinda like some inventors needs some amount of money to further develop their creation. We are not talking about $60 or $60 million, because it's irrelevant with the subject too. The only question is how those funds are used and the answer here in the world of cryptocurrencies is obvious - mostly to take them and run away.
I just don't think I can recall any ICO besides NXT that made people money. I wasn't really even discussing whether or not an ICO is a scam in itself because there are and have been Coins that have done ICO's which were not scams. My reasoning was that for whatever ICO is held, there would need to be atleast that amount or even double that in future funding in order to pay it off where ICO investors could make profit and the people buying on the market could also make profit.
The way the ICO's are done are flawed as well because if it doesn't sell out then the remaining Coins are sent to an unspendable address and that gives it an inflated marketcap and fucks up the Block explorer.
Ok so what is your solution then to the ICO problem? Remember that ID's can be faked, also that an ICO could be inadequate for the amount of funding needed so then how do you retain funding after that is gone?
Let's say you are interested in just working on a Coin, you would need around 2k USD per month per person working on the project in order to live comfortably and have money to pay existing developers within the community to help you with the things that are out of your reach.
poloniex coined the acronym " ICO " only to skirt regulations associated with the acronym " IPO " ... now who should really take the blame? : the "devs" or the exchanges !
:\
>> think about it !
:\
>> think about it !
notice how in those ico thread there are plenty of newbie following the ico and saying that they will buy, those are dev's sockpuppet, to rise the trust of that ico,
shit calls more shit, just ignore them completely
shit calls more shit, just ignore them completely
I don't believe there are only few person that are able to make a coin. They could be many.
The real scammers should be somewhere between 5 and 10 people. We are talking about guys whose "profession" here is to launch a coin, take as much money as they can, run away and launch new one.
I don't believe there are only few person that are able to make a coin. They could be many.
Expenses you are referring to are not correct, because you will also need to pay for github, domain and hosting. We are talking to use trusted companies with stable services, not your old computer in the basement. Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same.
Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same.I have never paid for github or domains, hosting is only needed until the network can run itself so it still doesn't really tell me why you need to have an ICO.
A coin is not only a working network. It needs to have some "face" too, and that requires some services and payments. There is no need to discuss this further, because everyone has their own opinion and what he needs for his project. We are also going out of the subject of the thread.
The reason why I kinda approve ICO is because I am seeing it as a real investment in the real world. Kinda like some inventors needs some amount of money to further develop their creation. We are not talking about $60 or $60 million, because it's irrelevant with the subject too. The only question is how those funds are used and the answer here in the world of cryptocurrencies is obvious - mostly to take them and run away.
Expenses you are referring to are not correct, because you will also need to pay for github, domain and hosting. We are talking to use trusted companies with stable services, not your old computer in the basement. Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same.
Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same.Since when were we referring to trusted companies with stable services? A Coin is run by people and not companies, otherwise the funding would already be there.
I have never paid for github or domains, hosting is only needed until the network can run itself so it still doesn't really tell me why you need to have an ICO.
Expenses you are referring to are not correct, because you will also need to pay for github, domain and hosting. We are talking to use trusted companies with stable services, not your old computer in the basement. Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same.
Otherwise our opinios on how it has to be done are pretty much the same. You don't really need an ICO, if you launch without one you can just wait until the initial mining dump finishes and begin buying, you could easily get 15-20% of the Coin for cheap and then just continue developing on it and you get the best of both worlds. If you launch without an ICO and buy from the market and are able to buy larger amounts then you would have had to buy from miners/stakers so assuming there was no deception, you can attain more than what could have been had by premining and can resale or give those Coins away to help stimulate development without having to worry about the accounting of it.
I am completely agree with you, but in order to achieve that you must have money to start.
Let's say you have some funds, good ideas and such, but those coins/your project are/is worthless (people are not buying it). I am not going to teach you on how much funds a project could require if we assume that you are failing for let's say months. Well a project costs virtually nothing to run and then to develop on, if someone can't maintain costs to the point where it is self sustainable then that person shouldn't be developing on the project. Raising 30k funding for whatever project doesn't mean it would be used wisely even if it were spent on development.
Let's think bigger for a bit. What if the dev (if we are talking about coins) is from Democratic Republic of Congo were average household income is like $400/year?
To support altcoin for like a year, you will need at least let's say $300-$500 for the accounts/hosting (such as github/domain) and to support the network. Not to mention your work and passion involved. How about if you suck on designing and such and you need some specialists in that field? You must pay them with something. You have like the best idea in the world, but you don't have money for it. How will you feel then if you have like the best coin out there, but trolls in here are not "supporting" it, pumping it etc... your work will be priced at -1 litoshi.
That is why I think that in some specific cases ICO's are not a bad thing. The world is running with investments since the beginning.
...if someone can't maintain costs to the point where it is self sustainable then that person shouldn't be developing on the project.
How about if we think about the idea first and then for the money involved? With that way of thinking many projects should not start at all.... cryptocurrencies included.
Even if they are from the Democratic Republican of the Congo, the actual costs to run a network are like $60 a year assuming you are atleast hosting 1 node, other than that it might be maybe $20 in electricity costs. If you suck at designing and need to pay specialists, well you could premine whatever you need from the Coin and use that for payment, or set it up in a way where that amount could be possible. If you truly suck at doing that stuff that much (paint shop pro and others are easy to use) then again I would question as to why they are there in the first place.
Basically whatever ICO is collected, that is the amount of future funding that is needed to pay off that amount so you are working with future debt rather than a free-floating market which is what you want.
I bought about 20% of PayCon for under $1000, used that for lots of promotion and development and got a lot done with it, built a very large base of people around it and at any given time I get more than 50 connections to the network. For me that is ok, my costs are nothing now and the money spent was worth it for me to learn the things I did and the network itself is profitable because by now everyone could have achieved ROI.
Trolls will only support something that can make them money, that is the simple truth in the matter. You think it's the trolls that don't support something? all you do is have to do is give the trolls what they want, after all a troll is only a person who is actively interested in Crypto and generally knows their stuff.
You don't really need an ICO, if you launch without one you can just wait until the initial mining dump finishes and begin buying, you could easily get 15-20% of the Coin for cheap and then just continue developing on it and you get the best of both worlds. If you launch without an ICO and buy from the market and are able to buy larger amounts then you would have had to buy from miners/stakers so assuming there was no deception, you can attain more than what could have been had by premining and can resale or give those Coins away to help stimulate development without having to worry about the accounting of it.
I am completely agree with you, but in order to achieve that you must have money to start.
Let's say you have some funds, good ideas and such, but those coins/your project are/is worthless (people are not buying it). I am not going to teach you on how much funds a project could require if we assume that you are failing for let's say months. Well a project costs virtually nothing to run and then to develop on, if someone can't maintain costs to the point where it is self sustainable then that person shouldn't be developing on the project. Raising 30k funding for whatever project doesn't mean it would be used wisely even if it were spent on development.
Let's think bigger for a bit. What if the dev (if we are talking about coins) is from Democratic Republic of Congo were average household income is like $400/year?
To support altcoin for like a year, you will need at least let's say $300-$500 for the accounts/hosting (such as github/domain) and to support the network. Not to mention your work and passion involved. How about if you suck on designing and such and you need some specialists in that field? You must pay them with something. You have like the best idea in the world, but you don't have money for it. How will you feel then if you have like the best coin out there, but trolls in here are not "supporting" it, pumping it etc... your work will be priced at -1 litoshi.
That is why I think that in some specific cases ICO's are not a bad thing. The world is running with investments since the beginning.
...if someone can't maintain costs to the point where it is self sustainable then that person shouldn't be developing on the project.
How about if we think about the idea first and then for the money involved? With that way of thinking many projects should not start at all.... cryptocurrencies included.
You don't really need an ICO, if you launch without one you can just wait until the initial mining dump finishes and begin buying, you could easily get 15-20% of the Coin for cheap and then just continue developing on it and you get the best of both worlds. If you launch without an ICO and buy from the market and are able to buy larger amounts then you would have had to buy from miners/stakers so assuming there was no deception, you can attain more than what could have been had by premining and can resale or give those Coins away to help stimulate development without having to worry about the accounting of it.
I am completely agree with you, but in order to achieve that you must have money to start.
Let's say you have some funds, good ideas and such, but those coins/your project are/is worthless (people are not buying it). I am not going to teach you on how much funds a project could require if we assume that you are failing for let's say months. Well a project costs virtually nothing to run and then to develop on, if someone can't maintain costs to the point where it is self sustainable then that person shouldn't be developing on the project. Raising 30k funding for whatever project doesn't mean it would be used wisely even if it were spent on development.
You don't really need an ICO, if you launch without one you can just wait until the initial mining dump finishes and begin buying, you could easily get 15-20% of the Coin for cheap and then just continue developing on it and you get the best of both worlds. If you launch without an ICO and buy from the market and are able to buy larger amounts then you would have had to buy from miners/stakers so assuming there was no deception, you can attain more than what could have been had by premining and can resale or give those Coins away to help stimulate development without having to worry about the accounting of it.
I am completely agree with you, but in order to achieve that you must have money to start.
Let's say you have some funds, good ideas and such, but those coins/your project are/is worthless (people are not buying it). I am not going to teach you on how much funds a project could require if we assume that you are failing for let's say months. I said it number of times before, I'll say it again - there is nothing wrong in ICO's as long as the money are used properly. But there must be more threads like this! Please understand that many capable coders and people with visions beyond of making some extra quick bucks are not well funded and their voice often remain unheard. This is happening, because of the one simple fact - people's greed. Thing is that many people are buying into the ICO's, because they know (let's face it - many ICO's were successful and people got chances to sell higher than they bought) that they will make profit, no matter if that profit is from screwing the average Joe who was naive enough to buy and hold. The simple fact is that people are buying to make quick profit - not because they want to support the given project, or cryptocurrencies for that matter. And the "devs" who are running them knows that!
Ask yourself why people (we are talking about the average Joe who is naive enough) are investing in ICO's and they are losing in 95% of the cases? Because they are sheeps... thats why! Instead asking themselves: "How the guys behind this project will sell the idea to the world.", they are buying roadmaps and fancy promises. Why are you not buying and supporting coins which are currently existing? Because they probably can't buy you a yacht that fast.
As for the scammers who are lurking in here... most of you have no idea. If you believe that let's say 2 people are behind 20 coins - you will be wrong. The situation is much worse than you think!
Ask yourself why people (we are talking about the average Joe who is naive enough) are investing in ICO's and they are losing in 95% of the cases? Because they are sheeps... thats why! Instead asking themselves: "How the guys behind this project will sell the idea to the world.", they are buying roadmaps and fancy promises. Why are you not buying and supporting coins which are currently existing? Because they probably can't buy you a yacht that fast.
As for the scammers who are lurking in here... most of you have no idea. If you believe that let's say 2 people are behind 20 coins - you will be wrong. The situation is much worse than you think!
You don't really need an ICO, if you launch without one you can just wait until the initial mining dump finishes and begin buying, you could easily get 15-20% of the Coin for cheap and then just continue developing on it and you get the best of both worlds. If you launch without an ICO and buy from the market and are able to buy larger amounts then you would have had to buy from miners/stakers so assuming there was no deception, you can attain more than what could have been had by premining and can resale or give those Coins away to help stimulate development without having to worry about the accounting of it.
Jump to: