Topic: Hardcap ICO is no guarantee that the project will succeed - page 23. (Read 31507 times)
I agree, but it is better to have a project that does not collect money. There is no guarantee ever, however, those projects whose fundraising was successful succeed much more often.
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 agree that an ICO meeting a Hardcap is not a guarantee that it will succeed. It is not the finance or funds alone dictates the faith of the project. Developer plays a huge part probably even greater than the funding of the project. If a project do not have a competent developer, they will never deliver the project on time worst, unable to deliver it.
There are lots of non-ICO coins that are not good project. Many of them are just experimental and at the end die naturally.
Even the project will raised the hardcap if they will only list tokens on the cheap Exchanges you know what to happen it will always dump, but if they will go to a good exchangers maybe it will much better for the project.Now we cant see a project that will list the tokens on a top exchangers because they will not able to make it if they will list on the top exchangers.And i have a good project that you may try also the yanu.io that offers IEO now and we can used also the tokens they offerin the future products of yanu.io.
Yes, I also agree with this, ICO is not a guarantee of the success of the project. On the contrary, according to statistics, investors are afraid to invest in ICO, because the probability of losing their money is very high.
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 believe Charles Hoskinson has pointed out that there is no correlation between a massively successful ICO and the ultimate success of a project, but I think virtually all projects need some capital to succeed. Bitcoin was started purely by enthusiasts, but I think a minimum of $5 to $10 million is needed for most projects. Again, raising substantial sums is no guarantee of success.
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 absolutely agree with you on this, Reaching softcap or hardcap on an ICO project doesn't really guarantees success that they will deliver their product based on their roadmap and plans. The hardest thing to do with the project is promote and let the community use your product/project. It depends on the projects if it have a real use-case. 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?
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?
It all depends on the project and the team.If the project has a target audience and an interested circle of people who are ready to invest in the project without an ICO, then why should it conduct an ICO?Many projects have collected Hard Cap but did not develop their project and Vice versa, many projects with a modest budget are very successful in the market.So everything is relative.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?
There were too many project which has reached the soft and hard caps but they turned scam in somehow.. Actually we never know that they really reached the hard caps? I want to warn to the ICO review sites. I used to make my researches with the ICO Bench website, they were very trustable at the beginning but in last 1 year their 5.0 pointed ICO projects turned scam. I believe that if they give the full point 5/5 to a project it shouldn't turn scam. And it is not only one, more than %50 projects turned scam which they gave 5 STARS!
They have just been lucky, they never have any strategy or technical tools to really grade this projects, they have also been using the whitepaper document gotten from them to pass their judgment, same as any investor who would be patient enough to research before investing would do and get good projects out, which is still like 50:50 chance’s.That is why with time, IEO will really make some of these ICO rating sites not active again, since there is already a guarantee that whatever project one is participating in on these TOP exchanges has already been verified to the core and the method of verification is not just limited to the whitepaper research alone.
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?
Even with only reaching the softcap target, actually the ICO can go success if they keep developing the project.
The hardcap can be made up by the team to make investors join and buying more token.
Even the hardcap project could be turned into a scam project, like Titanium blockchain back then.
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?
It all depends on the project and the team.If the project has a target audience and an interested circle of people who are ready to invest in the project without an ICO, then why should it conduct an ICO?Many projects have collected Hard Cap but did not develop their project and Vice versa, many projects with a modest budget are very successful in the market.So everything is relative. 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 also agree with you, there are some ICO that have reached hardcap but after list coin in market they have very cheap prices and their products are not released soon, I don't know that team works slowly or indeed they don't use well-collected funds
Some of their project were never really created to be carried out, they just bring up ICO, register it on exchange and abandoned the project, so that the investors can blame the loss of their fund on failed project or dumping, meanwhile they know what they were doing, they only pushed the product forward to get the attention of people to invest, and late divert their attention, while they are busy stuffing the money off their wallet into Fiat.Right now, I am still interested in investing in the ICO market, but I am very careful with the new ones, I do thorough screening before daring to participate while I focus more on projects on the top 30 of the coinmarketcap for investment.
It is true that it is not a guarantee, but achieving Hardcap means that they have enough funds that they need to maximize their projects according to their roadmap and whitepaper. Many ICO projects that reach hardcap are serious projects and have succeeded in realizing the products they have planned
Of course, it's just arbitrary numbers, what's important is that if they are going to sustained that growth or there will be incoming dumps. I've seen a lot of projects this year alone reaching hard cap but as soon as the token is listed, the price drops significantly.
On the contrary there are also some project who did good despite not having. reach their hard cap. So it really depends on the project and the team behind.
On the contrary there are also some project who did good despite not having. reach their hard cap. So it really depends on the project and the team behind.
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 think they didn't really hit the hardcap. There were several ICO projects that fabricated their raised money.
If they were hitting hardcap, many peoples should create the volume using their coin in the market, and the price wouldn't dropped too much.
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?
Most ico's that claims to have reached hardcap are later exposed as lie.. and sometimes do play an exit scam on their investors .. it's just funny 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 really have been thinking about this for quite a while now. There are just too many factors that actually come into play, scams being at the top of the pile. Even teams that were initially legit might get their heads turned by the amount of funds at their disposal after a successful IC
Me personally. I saw many of the projects that reach their hard cap but then again it will just be turned out to be a scam. Many of the people see that If a specific project reaches hard capital it will be a success but no its not. We should all just make sure that we do proper research for us to be not scammed by these project owners.
It seems to me that if the project was assembled by hardcap, then it is, on the contrary, very bad, because very many investors have already acquired what they wanted, so it will not be beneficial to make someone an offer. It's my opinion.
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 agree thats not a guarantee, but it will make things easier for the team to invest in technology, equipment, to pay for advertising, or what ever, point is that with money everything is easier. My opinion are facts of the past, bitcoin didnt have fund raising, but look where it is, some projects have more than million dollars investments and yet they didnt show a lot for that money. There are no guarantees in crypto apparently, take everything with suspicion, ask question, think twice before you invest, be careful and you will be fine. 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?
Yes its true that a project which reach hardcap no guarantee in the future, but a project which reach hardcap actually will develop because if you reach the hardcap its means its good project and get full support from commuity and investors
Jump to: