It is true I have seen so many ICO's that reach their hard cap but still couldn't get their project going.
I could still see their value still very low compare to their ICO price .
So for me hard cap doesn't guarantee anything.
Topic: Hardcap ICO is no guarantee that the project will succeed - page 26. (Read 31507 times)
Yeah, I also agree with you. At this moment there is a lots of project which touched the hardcap on the ICO or ieo phase and after sometimes we saw that the project was running under the water. It's not about the money always it's about the team, how the core team take the charge of the project, how they use the fund the future vision or roadmap, how good advisory board is. It's depends on every thing. But most of the time a free team with no fund collection comes to good cause they come to the market to do some work make the project good. They don't think about business.
Indeed hardcap is not a guarantee of the success of the project because it is possible for a project that actually has a low income to grow and vice versa a successful hardcap project can only use its income for the benefit of their team and even a scam
There is nothing purely secured but some sort of risk is involved with that and ICO if the team is strong and competent they do for ICO to become successful in the market and it is true that once the value of coins down in the market it is all about the public when they feel bot well and this is the grantee if you buy bitcoin and altcoins now and keep it for the price rise in the next seasons so project can be succeed.
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 at least that gives hope for the future. projects that achieve hardcaps are difficult to survive, what else are they who only reach softcaps.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?
and you know, just seriously developing is not enough to avoid dumping or even maintaining trading volume. so at least we need some rumors to keep people talking about it
Yeah.. Even if a project raises the hardcap its not a guarantee that the project will be successful. Some projects faces some issues like,
- Miss- management of funds.
- Individuals scamming the project
- Hackers
- Lack of good advisors
- loosing trust from the community
- Miss- management of funds.
- Individuals scamming the project
- Hackers
- Lack of good advisors
- loosing trust from the community
Although Hardcap ICO does not guarantee the success of a project, it is undoubtedly a weighty argument for the development of the project. For the team, this is an additional proof of the correctness of the choice of the direction of development of their project, the loyalty of investors, both to the project itself and to the team as a whole. This can be described as credit of trust, and everything else is in the hands of the team.
There are a few good projects that hit the hardcap. One example is TELCOIN which runs their wallet using the mobile network rather than internet. This means people in unbankable countries can use blockchain technology as well
Totally agree with you.
There are series of projects that reach hardcap and eventually got listed in some exchanger after the sale of the ICO but reverse is the case after listing as the market sometimes affect the price in that the project itself lack so many things but was just lucky to reach hardcap maybe because of some ratings or hype.
There are series of projects that reach hardcap and eventually got listed in some exchanger after the sale of the ICO but reverse is the case after listing as the market sometimes affect the price in that the project itself lack so many things but was just lucky to reach hardcap maybe because of some ratings or hype.
In the crypto-world, there are no guarantees at all, all promises can be broken. I try to choose a project on the team, it gives at least some hope.
ICO was already have a bad reputation since its madness on 2017, it's true that the Hardcap of any given ICO are merely impossible to reach and I didn't seen any ICO that reach its maximum. Project that don't have an ICO or premined would may be serious but that doesn't guarantee a future success.
1. many ico say if they reach hardcap on website but it turns out after all ends they disappear or say if they will return investor funds
2. projects that really reach hardcap they have a very slow team, that's because they are on vacation and spend a little more investor money (it doesn't really work)
3. those who reach hardcap and work properly will surely launch product and prove promise to investors when listing in the market (but only 1 in 1000 projects)
So I conclude that current project is not a guarantee that project will succeed even though it has reached hardcap
2. projects that really reach hardcap they have a very slow team, that's because they are on vacation and spend a little more investor money (it doesn't really work)
3. those who reach hardcap and work properly will surely launch product and prove promise to investors when listing in the market (but only 1 in 1000 projects)
So I conclude that current project is not a guarantee that project will succeed even though it has reached hardcap
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?
The subject of the post doesn't correspond with your explanation, i don't really understand your argument, do you mean project reaching hardcap doesn't guarantee success or those that engage in any kind of ico without any product to tender is bad? 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've seen many projects that have no ICO and no premine performing better than ICO projects and these no ICO projects have lesser chance of scam unlike ICO the funds is enough to be a target for scammers
If indeed premine is better than ICO, then it should be developed and followed, only what I see is the trend is more towards the IEO and many investors leave the ICO, is this premine a new program in crypto? or the old program that you want to update?
That's true, a project achieveing hard cap is not a yardstick that it will do well. I think most of these projects might be a product of hype, thus driving investors into investing.
In my own opinion, whether soft cap or hard cap, if the team lacks the relevant experience they will fail to develop the product and services they promised. Moreover, there are projects which are self-funded yet achieveing their aims and objectives.
In my own opinion, whether soft cap or hard cap, if the team lacks the relevant experience they will fail to develop the product and services they promised. Moreover, there are projects which are self-funded yet achieveing their aims and objectives.
Indeed even if a project gather a lot of money that will not guarantee that a project will succeed, and not guarantee that investors will ever recover their money and also to make a profit.
I will agree with you to a certian extent. First, yes it is true that a project reaching Hardcap doesn't mean it will deliver as promised, as this depends solely on the team and their experience. In the same way, there are Projects which met sotfcap and still fails to deliver.
On the other hand, there are most projects which achieved hard cap and still succeds in delivering what they promised, at the same time there are others which proceeds in delivering their promise just with soft cap.
So the success of a project depends mainly on the team.
On the other hand, there are most projects which achieved hard cap and still succeds in delivering what they promised, at the same time there are others which proceeds in delivering their promise just with soft cap.
So the success of a project depends mainly on the team.
There has been a shitload of ICOs in the last 2-3 years. Among them you can find many examples where the below has occured
So yeah, hardcaps in ICOs are just plain numbers which means nothing.
We all know about such options for the development of projects after ICO. It would be nice to know what the ratios at these points are. Is there a link to such a resource?- ICOs who didn't reach hard cap yet succeeded
- ICOs who reached hard cap and also succeeded
- ICOs who reached hard cap yet failed and
- ICOs who scammed.
So yeah, hardcaps in ICOs are just plain numbers which means nothing.
Although it is possible, it is still too early to compile statistics, as many projects continue to be developed (or they simulate develope
).
Yeah, I sensed that as well. There are some projects that did reach its hardcap but yet they failed. At times, I wonder why such projects could have failed having reached its hardcap. ICO projects can be funny at times.
If a project wants to succeed they will there are some projects that had no ICO but they've been consistent with their project development. ICOs to me is a meanscvof donating money to give some developers whom don't even know what they're developing. Success or failure of ICOs hardcap has nothing to do with projects success it's determ3on the part of the developer that matter.
Jump to: