Topic: How important are ICO advisors? - page 2. (Read 502 times)

Advisors will help them throughout the project from the idea and from how will it be beneficial to the users. They have much knowledge on what to do. Their experience matters as well their previous projects to know if they are effective.

It's a big gamble actually, you won't easily get the success investing in ICO.
But, with a reputable advisors, you have a little light that you can see in the future because this advisors
especially if they care for their reputation would not join a team that has no future potential.

Almost all ISO ideas only on paper and they will not be implemented for a long time, if at all. Advisers are giving advice on how to attract investment when you have everything on paper. A lot of Scam given the x's only through tough advisers.

I just want to reply like this.
personally, i never see advisor in ICO as important factor when i want to invest. that's only plus factor. good, solid and trustable team are more important for long term development

Advisors helps any ICO to improve their project that is going to open in public and I think it has an effect on the project if the person are well known, it can be an advantage but it doesn’t the project will succeed. Again the investors are also looking on this side, its a plus factor on ICO.

It would be more a much better option than on focusing on having an advisor which we dont even know if they do contribute into a particular project or just purely doing nothing and just only making exposure on a project.This turns out that they are just useless to me when project do have advisors with big names.It might help on boosting up the exposure and buzz but not totally an important role into project funding and development.

They are important but you should know how much are they really involved. Most important factor of an ICO is their team. So do check the background of each team member. Because they are the ones who would work on the project and make an ICO successful.

Advisor is only person with high skill to remand the team how to built project in the right way but have value ( mostly just follow the trend ). Most project will use this person to help them catch the trend, so the project look's not difficult to follow but have great performance. But some project decides not to use this person because has high fees and sometimes their decision against the project concept. Good luck to you bro.

It's very important that any ICO project have advisor because they are the key where they can go and make a decision about their project but before that, make sure that their advisor was legit and part of their team because nowadays there's a lot of ICO project that they use the name but they did not part of their campaign.

When a well known bounty manager is saying it then maybe I should pay more attention. I always felt that it was more of a marketing trick than anything else and that they really had little actual involvement in the ICO.

What's surprising is still how many ICOs make huge errors in judgment and are really poorly run despite having the expertise of advisors to call upon. Simple things like changing the terms of the ICO in terms of whitelisting or KYC at the last minute are really poor but so frequent.

Consultants may be to provide a reputation for the project protection
But not directly provide value In my opinion, the proportion of consultants in evaluating a project should not be too high
And now many consultants for projects are not experts in cryptography More is marketing and management

Of course advisers are important in any project. They can create an high interest in the project. But when you see famous people on the site, do not forget to check whether this person is really relevant to the project. In fact, the Advisor is an advertising face of the project. A vivid example of Ian Balina. But this does not guarantee  the project is not scam. And don't forget that all these people do not work for free. This is good, if someone of them is reading a white paper or at least can explain the essence of the project.

Within reason yes, I think mostly you need to consider the advisors and their reputation, I don't think the example I gave is in line with what you thought but there are definitely some 'advisors' who will just back a project for their own gain instead of because they actually believe in it.

They are the key of the project, they matters especially on making decisions, they are the one's that can tell whether such action will have an impact, it's their experience that the companies paying for. And we should also know the Advisors background when looking at an ICO.

I think ICO consultants are more like brand ambassadors, because ICO is not in the hands of consultants, or they can't predict the right things. Most of the time, consultants are more focused on marketing purposes.

I think that most part of those advisors usually don't even read the project's White Paper and all cooperation probably consist of a single skype call where they discuss only the basic concept of the project. Also the result of working with advisors us almost always not disclosed. Which means that a decent and experienced guy could take a look at ICO, say that it is garbage (or something like "your idea is bad but to start working on ICO you need to do..."). I wouldn't recommend to put much attention on advisors unless there is someone like Vitalik Buterin among their list.

The real problem with the ICOs lies in the false representation of the fake advisors. Some team( most of the teams) are showing the large group of the popular advisors and in the end, it is revealed that these certain advisors are not even aware that their name had been involved in the promotion of the certain projects. Scams are popular nowadays and every investor must be very careful if he wants to pick the proper project that is true and believable. To find out the real truth about the connection of the big names with the ceratin ICO projects try to search Linkedin, Twitter or every social network and try to look the connection between the advisors and the team behind the ICO. If even the slight mistake or false advertising is found step back and run.

As for the ICO developers who are looking for the big advisor I would recommend to choose at least 5 advisors because every advisor has his/her own perspective that is vital for the ICO success. Advisors are the must-have factor if the developers want to succeed in their project. They don't have to be big names( even if the big name will attract a lot of investors it can cost you financially).The advisors with the proper knowledge are crucial for the certain ICO success but false advisors are leading only to the demise in the end.

Полностью с вами согласна)

If you are searching for flipping ICOs, you should probably consider big name crytpo advisors as they will create hype and will be a good way for marketing. But if you want to hold the projects, instead of looking at advisors that are well-known in the crypto space, you should look at industry experts outside of crypto as you said.

I agree with your point of view. Advisors are very important anyway for marketing purposes too, because if people see that "big names" are advisors, they are more prone to invest...