Lately i was seen not much ICO's projects reach to hard cap anymore even there was plenty of ICO's failed and even not reach to soft cap but indeed most of ICO's which reach to hard cap most likely will be dump after listing on the exchange and some of them even cannot bounce back again with eventually the investors cannot get profit and the worst situations is investors cannot ROI
that's right. Additional is a Hard cap is only the maximum possible amount with the tokens that they are selling. Some of the ICO now is falling or a failure to raised their required minimum amount whilst in todays ICO's might have a new variety which they could partner with the exchange and to have an IEO anyway to be talk about hardcap. This is most often basis of success and the use of the project if it has a huge potential how the token sale was been done and sold. This is just on what i've been observe and with my own experience. 
Topic: Hardcap ICO is no guarantee that the project will succeed - page 24. (Read 31507 times)
Yes you are right
Success of a project depends on its hardwork and sheer determination
If a project is dent on running away with funds just like ironx did
Then, nothing like hardcap or softcap impacts
Success of a project depends on its hardwork and sheer determination
If a project is dent on running away with funds just like ironx did
Then, nothing like hardcap or softcap impacts
Lately i was seen not much ICO's projects reach to hard cap anymore even there was plenty of ICO's failed and even not reach to soft cap but indeed most of ICO's which reach to hard cap most likely will be dump after listing on the exchange and some of them even cannot bounce back again with eventually the investors cannot get profit and the worst situations is investors cannot ROI
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?
That's true, people invest in a project because they love the idea and they help a project to reach the hardcap. But, no one knows if the team could really deliver project development, no one knows if the team could make the dream comes true. That's why hardcap could never be a guarantee that the project will have a real use in the future. 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?
as we see hardcap is not gurantee that project will be not scam! I know projects that collected over 30m $ and after just stole money
This supervision is indeed an important thing that must be done by many parties if you see projeck that is able to get tens of millions in ico because there are many who do not match expectations 
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?
Really agree, even project that in minute reach hardcap, almost die and get dumped in market. I think all of it not really depends on hardcap. Even softcap, when developer really serious on their project, it will attract new investors and make project can be better. 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?
as we see hardcap is not gurantee that project will be not scam! I know projects that collected over 30m $ and after just stole money
I see a lot already happen in here and i just can one thing about it. Never believe what your eyes see and never take something easy if you see something that might too good to be true. Sometime yeah i did hit jackpot but almost of the time i hit shit tokens for a dozen time now. 
as we see hardcap is not gurantee that project will be not scam! I know projects that collected over 30m $ and after just stole money
when a project concept isn't really viable and the team lies about the funds they got so they'd be funded more, its going to be a criteria for failure. there are insurance and health related projects that were doing ICO last 2017 but end up in the bottom up to today they are struggling to continue the project. most investors are gone and developers are active. even if they get the hardcap but the team are doing well, they are bound to doom.
Many ICOs give fake data about the amount they earn, most of the projects are growing slowly not as in the roadmap.
I agree that hardcap ico is no guarantee that the project will succeed.
There is some other factors can make the project will succeed like : consistent to deploy the project appropriate on the roadmap.
Even though the project with the small funds can be succeed if that project is has real use .
There is some other factors can make the project will succeed like : consistent to deploy the project appropriate on the roadmap.
Even though the project with the small funds can be succeed if that project is has real use .
you're right, hardcap is no guarantee the project will succeed because they must know how to manage their funds
almost all projects now have the same concept, maybe they start to get confused with ideas. the attraction of investors may be their partners and the team is clear. that might affect the final outcome of the ico
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?
Tokens were not much useful like the crypto currencies which was solely created for the purpose of making profits through trading so people already got enough tokens like that so they are not giving interest new projects and even if they reached their hard cap they might get dumped soon after the sale completed. 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?
Mostly it often happens that hardcap projects can possibly not develop in the future. But there are also hard projects that can successfully develop. I think of course we have to look at the roadmap and its development from the project. If the project team is really serious, of course, with the income of the softcap fund alone, it will grow in the future.
Hardcap ICO does not guarantee anything. It all depends on the project itself. Many projects without ICO are the same shit as a project with ICO.
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 with you on this, but I also think that a real product of the project will show the potential of the project.
For example, Yanu.ai reached their softcap with ICO and they're now almost ready with the first prototype of the autonomous bartender, which shows that it's important to actually have a product and it's quite good to bring something different to the market. At least I haven't found a project like that yet
Not All ICO hardcap in token sale always good and pump after list in exchange.
I join few airdrops and only 1 their project is Hardcap.
That tokens is pump after list on exchange, but their tokens is locked.
I join few airdrops and only 1 their project is Hardcap.
That tokens is pump after list on exchange, but their tokens is locked.
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?
Well, I guess it is not a new thing for everyone to know and that is why people keep hammering on the need to careful study the project, especially the team and the product before investing in an ICO. It is only a very genuine successful team with a sound product that will make an ICO successful in future.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?
This problem of bad projects has really crippled the ICO market and made a lot of investors lose interest because they eventually result to being dump when they hit exchange and because of their weakness, they die off the market by turning to shitcoins and making the holder become bag holder, I think projects without ICO or premine are still the best now.
I agree with you, but such projects are a minority. Successful blockchain startups collect all the necessary amount during a closed sale and they do not need an ICO to attract additional funds, but in this case the project should stand out with an outstanding concept and have a reputation.
Jump to: