Topic: Evidences of bad ICO - page 2. (Read 227 times)
Useful topic for! I think, it will be very helpful for newbies. Right choice of ICO for investing or bounty is very important. Nowadays a lot of scammers want to rob investors. Also 3/4 of all ICOs price fell at the end and investors lose their money. So thank you, author.
In this section a lot of topics about the most perspective ICO for investments and there is not a single topic in which it would be possible to discuss projects that sounds bad or like a scam. If you want to evaluate any ICO project, commonly you pay attention to four main elements: Team; Token; Technology; Conception.
1. First, what you need to pay attention to, assessing the viability of ICO is team. People in this team are real? If they are, have they skills really? Don't be arfaid to make contact with developers, write them on email, Facebook, Linkedin. If you look good, you can even find phone numbers. Mandatory check point - communication with advisers. Thay can give you some info about project. By the way, the reputation of developers should also be checked, so do not be lazy to write and call them.
Aslo you should to search answers for these questions: Is there any information about the members of the team other than those stated on the official website and in social networks? When did the first publications appear? What was it about? Where else did the author come out in public (specialized sites, forums, comments on blogs and so on)?
Further, as a rule, you analyze a legal entity: registration, location (use online maps); if it is a question of pre-ICO, you can even check the mailing address by sending a greeting letter on paper (at least twice, I did it and the flair did not disappoint me). Association and other places where this legal entity should consist.
There is another point that often has to be used in everyday practice: search by phone number or email. What's for? The fact is that everything has a property to be indexed. Therefore, old accounts in social networks, on bulletin boards, etc. often can say a lot about a person.
2. Token. Finnaly, after SEC & MAS, people start to understand that, release something that isn't clear,it is not clear to whom is not just strange, but also dangerous.
Is the economy of the token well developed? How much the project is going to release them? How will the internal currency be distributed? It is also important to understand: how a user can use a token within a system? If the currency has no use at all, except as an abstract "sell more dearly after a while, this is a serious reason to think about the reliability of the ICO.
Here are a few more nuances on the topic:
3. It's very difficult to evaluate technology, if you are not a specialist. But sometimes the results can even give a check of White Paper on plagiarism – simple short-term scams don't bother to develop a documentation. Also you can ask a question to experts on forums or even in Telegram to the developers themselves: are there any open sources on Git or another resource? Is the smart-contract similar to the usual example from a Google box? As a rule, the scam can be determined even by the quality of feedback. The answers of the scammers contain contradictions and rarely differ in detail.
4. Conception. If in technology we evaluate a code, the possibility of realisation the product in terms of production, here the competitive market and the economic utility of the service generally. Skams can be distinguished by too rosy descriptions or, conversely, confusing definitions, of which little remains clear after reading. At the same time, you need to look for answers to the next questions: how different is the concept from its closest competitors? What are differ them? At which stage are the competitors? Are there any analogues of centralized solutions?
Also, now it is necessary to analyze the level of the hype around the project. And if it is then, with the intention to quickly sell a coin immediately after entering the exchange, such projects can be very attractive. As a rule, the hype is determined by the number of participants in the group in telegrams, the number of visits to the site, the number of references in the media, etc.
That's all in short. But there is things that starts to cause a sharp dislike and it needs to be spoken about.
At the forum, if you start writing something negative about the project, Such a post can be
counted as FUD and blamed you for clogging the topic. So I think topic, in which it will be possible to express a negative about some ICOs will not be superfluous.
1. First, what you need to pay attention to, assessing the viability of ICO is team. People in this team are real? If they are, have they skills really? Don't be arfaid to make contact with developers, write them on email, Facebook, Linkedin. If you look good, you can even find phone numbers. Mandatory check point - communication with advisers. Thay can give you some info about project. By the way, the reputation of developers should also be checked, so do not be lazy to write and call them.
Aslo you should to search answers for these questions: Is there any information about the members of the team other than those stated on the official website and in social networks? When did the first publications appear? What was it about? Where else did the author come out in public (specialized sites, forums, comments on blogs and so on)?
Further, as a rule, you analyze a legal entity: registration, location (use online maps); if it is a question of pre-ICO, you can even check the mailing address by sending a greeting letter on paper (at least twice, I did it and the flair did not disappoint me). Association and other places where this legal entity should consist.
There is another point that often has to be used in everyday practice: search by phone number or email. What's for? The fact is that everything has a property to be indexed. Therefore, old accounts in social networks, on bulletin boards, etc. often can say a lot about a person.
2. Token. Finnaly, after SEC & MAS, people start to understand that, release something that isn't clear,it is not clear to whom is not just strange, but also dangerous.
Is the economy of the token well developed? How much the project is going to release them? How will the internal currency be distributed? It is also important to understand: how a user can use a token within a system? If the currency has no use at all, except as an abstract "sell more dearly after a while, this is a serious reason to think about the reliability of the ICO.
Here are a few more nuances on the topic:
3. It's very difficult to evaluate technology, if you are not a specialist. But sometimes the results can even give a check of White Paper on plagiarism – simple short-term scams don't bother to develop a documentation. Also you can ask a question to experts on forums or even in Telegram to the developers themselves: are there any open sources on Git or another resource? Is the smart-contract similar to the usual example from a Google box? As a rule, the scam can be determined even by the quality of feedback. The answers of the scammers contain contradictions and rarely differ in detail.
4. Conception. If in technology we evaluate a code, the possibility of realisation the product in terms of production, here the competitive market and the economic utility of the service generally. Skams can be distinguished by too rosy descriptions or, conversely, confusing definitions, of which little remains clear after reading. At the same time, you need to look for answers to the next questions: how different is the concept from its closest competitors? What are differ them? At which stage are the competitors? Are there any analogues of centralized solutions?
- Is there an agreement on the distribution of tokens?
- How is a token in general denoted in different documents: roadmap, whitepaper, public offer, etc?
- How many tokens are issued and what is their economy?
Also, now it is necessary to analyze the level of the hype around the project. And if it is then, with the intention to quickly sell a coin immediately after entering the exchange, such projects can be very attractive. As a rule, the hype is determined by the number of participants in the group in telegrams, the number of visits to the site, the number of references in the media, etc.
That's all in short. But there is things that starts to cause a sharp dislike and it needs to be spoken about.
At the forum, if you start writing something negative about the project, Such a post can be
counted as FUD and blamed you for clogging the topic. So I think topic, in which it will be possible to express a negative about some ICOs will not be superfluous.
Jump to: