I never think that Hardcap ICO can be an indicator to determine the project succeeded because it does not always work especially if the project doesn't tell to the public on how much money they raise for the project.
The hardcap ICO could be another information that might be useful for the investor to join with the project.
If the project can get success in a short time, it doesn't guarantee to see the project can survive in a long time because it would depend on the teams itself.
And that is why many projects cannot continue the project in a long time and make the investor disappointed.
Topic: Hardcap ICO is no guarantee that the project will succeed - page 25. (Read 31492 times)
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?
Look, there are two things: project and the coin. Mostly people presume that the success of one results in the success of the other but that's not always true. I have seen projects raising hundred of millions in ICO but failing to execute their product/service (e.g. Envion). Whereas there are projects which have furnished a superb product/service but the value of their coin in market is very-very low (e.g. IndaHash).
So ICO is surely not the right parameter to measure the success, there are coins with no ICO being very successful. However, you can't say all projects with no ICO are serious. Most of the Airdrop coins are worthless.
Of course, projects that do not carry out ICO (or premine) are good projects 
After all, this means that they already have money to develop the project.
Or it means that they have no money, and they want to "shoot" at the expense of the idea. And this is very, very risky.
ICO is just a fundraising mechanism and I think there is nothing bad about conducting ICOs and raising funds for your startup or product if the project backing it is great. There have been companies with no dollar in the bank and have been funded by Y combinatory. IEO is these days very buzz maker in the market and has been catching attention of investors which could also be used to raise funds. After all, this means that they already have money to develop the project.Or it means that they have no money, and they want to "shoot" at the expense of the idea. And this is very, very risky.
Many projects became successful because of ICO though the failure is kinda huge compare to successful one's.
I somewhat disagree to your statement "but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects" because there are lots of project that became successful by reaching their soft cap/hard cap and they are very serious in making their project the best one.
Though there are other projects that became successful also without launching an ICO or premine but it doesn't mean that they are more reliable compare to those projects who have an ICO.
I somewhat disagree to your statement "but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects" because there are lots of project that became successful by reaching their soft cap/hard cap and they are very serious in making their project the best one.
Though there are other projects that became successful also without launching an ICO or premine but it doesn't mean that they are more reliable compare to those projects who have an ICO.
This I agree with. A lot of people think projects that meet hardcap are ideal for investing in. This is a very big mistake and I wonder how people don't realize that it's not the hardcap that matters but the usability of the project's coins/tokens
I also agree to this. some of the projects that I have seen really have reached the hardcap, only that it is not in accordance with expectations. however, it all depends on the team, even a project can be run when the softcap is collected. well, that's why there are limitations to softcap and hardcap.
This I agree with. A lot of people think projects that meet hardcap are ideal for investing in. This is a very big mistake and I wonder how people don't realize that it's not the hardcap that matters but the usability of the project's coins/tokens
I also agree to this. some of the projects that I have seen really have reached the hardcap, only that it is not in accordance with expectations. however, it all depends on the team, even a project can be run when the softcap is collected. well, that's why there are limitations to softcap and hardcap.
This I agree with. A lot of people think projects that meet hardcap are ideal for investing in. This is a very big mistake and I wonder how people don't realize that it's not the hardcap that matters but the usability of the project's coins/tokens
Right, we cant fully base on the hardcap of a project but the chances of reaching their goals are getting higher when they reach their hardcap.
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!
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?
Hardcap can never be a guarantee that a project is going to succeed, some projects lacks good management skills and this will affect the company so much because they can end up spending the funds on unnecessary things that are not even needed for the project, what you should look at mostly is the team behind the project, check their commitment towards the project and not just the hype they create, because hype will only raise fund for the company but not get the job done. 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?
If the project wants to show stable growth, then it should take care of the liquidity of the coin. I think that it is important for investors to have money to buy coins after listing.
project who don't run their ICO nor having their premine, but with working product or app has high chance that they are not here for easy money. youve seen last year that projects achieving their soft cap/hard cap have no assurance at all that they will deliver their objectives to their clients. they are active during the token sale, but once they got the money, their enthusiasm die down. and you couldnt even get a decent answer from their end if you ask about their developments.
attaining hard cap does not equate to success to most of them. because most of them have the intentions of running away from the investors. hard truth!
attaining hard cap does not equate to success to most of them. because most of them have the intentions of running away from the investors. hard truth!
That's the painful truth mate, reaching hardcap or launching an ICO does not guarantee the success of a project but rather the concept behind the project. How is the project going to solve an existing problem and how would it's utility token be used on its platform to bring profit to its early investors. Not forgetting strategical marketing plan from the team as well. this combined should help any project stabilize itself in the ecosystem.
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?
Agree with this sometimes project that has successful hardcap became nothing when it comes to an exchange many people told if the project reach hard cap it would became successful but there are wrong it was all about the project by itself if they comply all the regulations or not it will dictate on the status of the project. 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 even the hard cap reach of one project it not means they successful because they have a lot of challenges they need to pass before they become successful and also the problem on how to avoid dumping value if the coin listed to the market and also the project not succeed if the team run all our money after their reach their target money.
The success of a crypto project strongly depends on the kind of gap this project is bridging in the crypto ecosystem and the world in general. Sometimes the relevance of the product launched by the project and how useful this product is to the entire crypto space and the world. Although the amount of money raised during an ICO actually tells something about the progress of the crypto projects, it does not really tell how successful the project is going to be.
From what has been observed so far it is quite clear that ICO is not a guarantee of a successful project, but rather a place of choice for how well ideas and products after entering the market. Many factors of ICO failure come from the collaboration of everyone in it because the level of fraud is very high now we must be careful when participating in it.
This is what often happens, the ICO project is now only concerned with money and not serious in developing projects and products. that is why many ICO projects are not successful even though they reach the hardcap target. in personal experience, I have an example project that I mean is exscudo
Most of the time Hardcap is usually not the case as we had so many ICOs when the whole hype and moons started collected more than enough say 15M and up till now there is no remarkable progress made there impact so investors have decided to let them After Hitting softcap they just didnt forecast the market and not really concerned about crypto coz if they are will have seen bearish coming they lost peoples money and no any concrete work at all
Of course, it is important to pay attention to the amount of funds collected by the project, but this cant be the main indicator. I agree with you on that. The main thing is the result of the work, it is necessary to pay attention to what the team managed to achieve.
Jump to: