the one who determines the success of a project is a team and a good DEV, who truly carry out all their goals in conducting the ICO.
hard cap is not a guarantee that a project will be successful.
Topic: Hardcap ICO is no guarantee that the project will succeed - page 11. (Read 31507 times)
ICO projects collected tens of millions on the messenger. Hardcap is not an indicator of success.
I do not think that the quality of the project is determined by the collection of funds. Fundraising makes the project more famous and allows you to scale up the business. Also, developers get more resources to develop. There are good engineers, but sometimes they just don’t have enough power to turn ideas into reality.
As you say fundraising will have an impact on the development of advanced projects whether it's massive promotion or there are products that are made, when a project reaches Hardcap it challenges the next to the developers they can or not? that's what determines.
I agree with your opinion, raising Hard Cap does not mean the product will be successfully developed. The team have to use the funds wisely, paying attention both for development and marketing.
If an ICO reaches Hardcap then it is a very good achievement by the Project itself and it guarantees that their project is indeed very good at doing work.
Of course it will be much more robust than ICO projects that only achieve soft-cap, but all must depend on the team. That if they use that money to invest in the project growing
ICO is not a guarantee that the project will be successful, because most ICO projects are still limited to concepts and do not have clear references
Concept projects don't really need references in as much as I know because they are pretty much the blueprint!And what is said above is true but reaching a hardcap shows how others have confidence in the concept the project is selling to the public and people are showing interest by subscribing in the ICO. FYI ICOs being an investment you either win or lose as the main reason of investing is to make a profit
but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects.
and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?
Usually serous??? I doubt it , this is true for first generation cryptocurrencies and does not apply to these new coins here. and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?
A successful ICO as a determining factor for a project survival was for season like 2017. Today, the story has changed completely as even ICOs almost forgotten. ICOs now are gradually turning archaic.
Yes reaching hardcap is no guaranteed that the project will be successful if the team is not serious or competent to develop their product. There's a lot of projects out there that teach their hardcap but still having hard time developing their project because they are incompetent.
The problem is that the projects are guided by the amount in dollars but received in ETH/BTC. Let's remember the beginning of 2018 when seemingly successful ICO several times extended sale or collecting the necessary amount (and taking into account the fall of ETH, it significantly decreased from the originally planned) reported that with the listing on the exchange and the development of the project will have to wait. "Bear market", they said.
And so every time: falls BTC - bad, growing BTC - bad! And then delays in the terms of the roadmap, failure to fulfill promises to investors, lack of interest in maintaining a stable exchange rate on the exchanges (the role of MM).
ICO is not a guarantee that the project will be successful, because most ICO projects are still limited to concepts and do not have clear references,
but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects.
and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?
I would not at all begin to determine the reliability of a project by the criterion of whether ICO is conducted or not. In the world of crypto currencies, no one will give you any guarantee that the project will be successful. Here you can rely only on yourself, on your mind and professional qualities. Before buying coins, you should always carry out your analysis of the project and if something suspicious about you, then it is better to refrain from participating in it. but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects.
and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?
I do not think that the quality of the project is determined by the collection of funds. Fundraising makes the project more famous and allows you to scale up the business. Also, developers get more resources to develop. There are good engineers, but sometimes they just don’t have enough power to turn ideas into reality.
when it reaches hardcap, it means that the project has the trust of investors, maybe their white papper is very convincing, but sometimes a project does not carry out the roadmap well, thus eliminating investor confidence
I agree with your opinion. Even if the project mobilizes the amount corresponding to the project hardcap, it is not guaranteed that the project will develop successfully in the future. An example for this is the CMT coin. This project mobilizes hardcap and when it comes to the market at times 5x the ICO price. But now CMT copper price is lower than ICO price. This shows that if the project does not develop products as the roadmap laid out, it will lose confidence from investors.
If an ICO reaches Hardcap then it is a very good achievement by the Project itself and it guarantees that their project is indeed very good at doing work.
Yes reaching hardcap is no guaranteed that the project will be successful if the team is not serious or competent to develop their product. There's a lot of projects out there that teach their hardcap but still having hard time developing their project because they are incompetent.
The problem is that the projects are guided by the amount in dollars but received in ETH/BTC. Let's remember the beginning of 2018 when seemingly successful ICO several times extended sale or collecting the necessary amount (and taking into account the fall of ETH, it significantly decreased from the originally planned) reported that with the listing on the exchange and the development of the project will have to wait. "Bear market", they said.
Projects without ICOs are more serious as they themselves plan to run their project with internal fund or private funds. If somebody invests in a project, he or she becomes more serious about the project. ICOs are a means of collecting funds so as to fund a project. Therefore it seems ICO launching projects may not be serious as they intend to run their project through fund-raising.
Yes reaching hardcap is no guaranteed that the project will be successful if the team is not serious or competent to develop their product. There's a lot of projects out there that teach their hardcap but still having hard time developing their project because they are incompetent.
I experienced investing in ICO and they reach the hardcap. We thought its a good news for us who invest but sad to say the token didnt make it to be listed in any exchanges. Hardcap is a sign of success but if the team is not serious to push their project to progress nothing will happen, only the investors will suffer. Yes reaching hardcap is no guaranteed that the project will be successful if the team is not serious or competent to develop their product. There's a lot of projects out there that teach their hardcap but still having hard time developing their project because they are incompetent.
The problem is that the projects are guided by the amount in dollars but received in ETH/BTC. Let's remember the beginning of 2018 when seemingly successful ICO several times extended sale or collecting the necessary amount (and taking into account the fall of ETH, it significantly decreased from the originally planned) reported that with the listing on the exchange and the development of the project will have to wait. "Bear market", they said.
ICO is not a guarantee that the project will be successful, because most ICO projects are still limited to concepts and do not have clear references,
but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects.
and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?
but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects.
and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?
I kind of agree. The one thing I absolutely hate is ICOs that don't have a hard cap. This is why I am still having such a hard time in trusting EOS. That never ending ICO just looks like a huge money grab. I know the project looks good, but what is the need to get that sort of money other than pure greed?
Yes reaching hardcap is no guaranteed that the project will be successful if the team is not serious or competent to develop their product. There's a lot of projects out there that teach their hardcap but still having hard time developing their project because they are incompetent.
Of course it's not a guarantee. There have been many projects that quickly collected the right amount of money and disappeared somewhere. Bought an island and live very well at the expense of investors.
Some projects have the Hardcap set for a reason. If they just let all the coins available during the ICO then there would be portions of people holding a substantial amount of coins and that person would sell the coins inside of the market for a while....that would hurt the project. The question is not that easy to answer though you are correct as it being one of the easiest methods of money making. Jump to: