Topic: How do you know a shitty ICO (Read 355 times)
This is a very complicated issue and cannot communicate with you in detail. You can't understand it. For example, an investment in the ICO of the cryptocurrency market is equal to a company that has invested in a developer team. Then you have to know what kind of company you will invest in. This is very similar to your own business. Perhaps market economics is needed here.
There is no way to be sure, but you can examine everything about it-the roadmap, the whitepaper, the team, the website.
Make sure their project is actually contributing to a worthy cause and has a future. Easier said than done. Gut feeling is also not something to be underestimated.
Make sure their project is actually contributing to a worthy cause and has a future. Easier said than done. Gut feeling is also not something to be underestimated.
when choosing an ico, I pay attention to the composition of the team (preferably Japan or China), a technical document (it must be correctly written, without contradictions), the duration of the ico (if it is constantly extended, then the product is not practical), the evaluation of the advisors, and read the reviews of bounty hunters)))
Now I just follow my intuition cause any analysis doesn't help any more, scammers have learnt to pretend really well, they write white papers, hire advisors and now you can't just identify shit coin logically.
To avoid an ICO fraudulent project, I also look at the faces of the project developers. If the photos are not clear and there are no real photos of these people and if I, as an investor, cannot get an answer to my question to the developers during the day, then this is a poorly organized crappy project.
When examining ICO projects, I also draw in the way the development team looks like. If the photos are blurred, if I do not see real people in the video, if I can not talk to the developers online, then I do not consider such a ICO project for investment and do not advise anyone.
Shitty ICO is usually using fake identity to running the project, thats why we should check right the team, they will gone later
The first thing i do to look for an ICO would be to check on the concept of the project itself, and also the team validity and last but not least would be to look for an ESCROW of the project that can be used as guarantee that the project is real.
If the project does not have MVP and he didn’t raised some money on pre-sales, then it will be a crappy ICO.
Mostly I judge them by the team, come on check this forum and see a lot of icos company looking for partners to work for free for them in order to collect a coin which the future is not even certain. If you don't have money to pay a developer, whitepaper writer etc. How on earth will you f*cking get money for promotion. 
It is not just buy the money spent or not spent on the ICO. Some ICOs might spend money for marketing and yet still turn out to be scam. I have seen desperate ICO CEOs spend so much on marketing and at the end ran away with investors money.
You already mentioned part of the criteria needed to determine a good ICO, which is the team. One thing about me is, if i do not trust your team, then i won't invest.
Mostly I judge them by the team, come on check this forum and see a lot of icos company looking for partners to work for free for them in order to collect a coin which the future is not even certain. If you don't have money to pay a developer, whitepaper writer etc. How on earth will you f*cking get money for promotion.
Yeah, I always look at the team first before get to do research on any other things of the ICO. But I think your other opinion about how Company pay their team is totally wrong. Just so you know that before any developer, writer, designer, or any other professional decided to join a project and paid with the projects coin/token they will always do research on the projects, trust no one wants to work for free. And if you never join a projects, most of the time the projects founder will give an option to each of the team member whether they want to be paid full in token, or paid half in token and half in ETH/BTC/Stellar/EOS/NEO or any high tier crypto. So it is their choice to be paid in token.
I will usually look at the business model, roadmap and team. The business model must be disruptive, roadmap must be reasonable to meet goals and the team must be genuine.
Look at their social media and threads here if they are active, look at team, look at road map how detailed it is. These are the features which should be taken into consideration at first sight.
Just to add to this. For me I think a good ICO should have a ANN thread on Bitcointalk and a subReddit page. This is where they get critiqued and queried real hard and the professionals will ask the team pertinent questions about the project. An ICO without these will look shady to me.
Mostly I judge them by the team, come on check this forum and see a lot of icos company looking for partners to work for free for them in order to collect a coin which the future is not even certain. If you don't have money to pay a developer, whitepaper writer etc. How on earth will you f*cking get money for promotion.
This to me isn't sufficient reason to conclude an ICO is shitty. Mind you, not every project that will be rich prior to coming into the space. The whole essence of running an ICO is essentially to raise funds for the continued development of the project. So if a project chooses to pay developers, and promotion with it's token, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Mostly I judge them by the team, come on check this forum and see a lot of icos company looking for partners to work for free for them in order to collect a coin which the future is not even certain. If you don't have money to pay a developer, whitepaper writer etc. How on earth will you f*cking get money for promotion.
ALL of them -
POW is the only way to start a trustless CC
Perhaps ones that have been around for many years and still going strong could be safe
Projects of scammers can be seen immediately, on the team, on a bad site, on the idea that either already exists , or it is invented just to be , usually when you view such a project, you can immediately understand the falseness.
There are just to many things to list that can make an ICO shitty. Instead I will give you a list of the necessary ingredients for a successful ICO.
1) A management team with direct experience in the industry they intend to disrupt as well as blockchain experience.
2) A project that can only be done through the use of the blockchain.
3) It solve a problem within a large market and the problem is significant enough that people will pay to solve it.
4) No more than a 10% discount to early investors and if a bigger discount is made it includes a lock up period.
1) A management team with direct experience in the industry they intend to disrupt as well as blockchain experience.
2) A project that can only be done through the use of the blockchain.
3) It solve a problem within a large market and the problem is significant enough that people will pay to solve it.
4) No more than a 10% discount to early investors and if a bigger discount is made it includes a lock up period.
Is hard to know mate we just have to be careful and study well the whitepaper and the team if they have product is also a criteria look into all this.
A shitty ICO could be identified by looking into many aspects such as team identity and support, whitepaper, roadmap etcitra.
A promising ICO may turn into scam later if they don't get sufficient contribution from people and such coin come with less than $0.01 in market
A promising ICO may turn into scam later if they don't get sufficient contribution from people and such coin come with less than $0.01 in market
Look at their social media and threads here if they are active, look at team, look at road map how detailed it is. These are the features which should be taken into consideration at first sight.
Jump to: