Topic: ICO and IEO running at same time for same project - page 5. (Read 698 times)
I think the use of two token recognition methods does not matter because the purpose of IEO and ICO is to collect funds and introduce tokens, the reason for using ICO and IEO together I think will strongly support the acceleration of the process of getting funding in developing projects. but in my opinion, the crypto project that wants to use IEO and ICO, it's better not together, first do ICO then continue on IEO then it will be better.
With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
They just trying to divert the mind of the investors and think that they could generate more money for this foolish action. It is that to be that investors should spend more time in knowing the capability of a certain project. They'll be happy to see people being tricked and rejoice they're victorious.Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
This is important to see the transparency of the project and people would leave no doubts and the fear of losing in the future. This would be the mindset of the developers who run a project and not just for the sake to earn money without something to give in return to the investors.
Normally the first stage is ICO, when they raise enough funds in ICO, they will go for the IEO, I think as an investor to be safe, invest on them when they already have an IEO. Though they offer good rates during ICO but the risk is relatively high, so it's not good to take such risk.
It's good if the project are transparent with the amount they raise, but those projects who does not raise much might hide the real amount raise since that is not attractive to investors, what I notice with the competition now, investors are more eager to invest when the project already raise a decent amount, they do that because the project is already guaranteed to be successful.
It's good if the project are transparent with the amount they raise, but those projects who does not raise much might hide the real amount raise since that is not attractive to investors, what I notice with the competition now, investors are more eager to invest when the project already raise a decent amount, they do that because the project is already guaranteed to be successful.
I would not participate in projects that conduct two types of fundraising at the same time it is impossible to control the stages of fundraising and get some kind of indicators of the real interests of people;
if this is somehow possible in the open blockchain (ICO), then during the fundraising on the exchange it is an almost impossible task (IEO)
if this is somehow possible in the open blockchain (ICO), then during the fundraising on the exchange it is an almost impossible task (IEO)
Projects that use the ICO and IEO methods together are to maximize project sales, so the team uses both methods, so that fundraising for the project can run faster and more, because all project teams have their own strategies and ways of running the project.
There are several dimensions of token sale we have in the cryptocurrency space. I personally haven't seen a project running ICO and IEO simultaneously, but I know its possible and the major reason could be to give the investors several opportunities and make the ICO more attractive by increasing the discounts on purchasing via the ICO. I've ones heard that payment to the exchange used in conducting the IEO could be based on the number of tokens sold.
I think they just want money. And if the project does not report collection figures, 90% are scammers. Because they do not show real numbers. This is very bad. I try to stay away from such projects further.
With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
I think it was a scam project, if the project really wanted to raise funds he would choose one method instead of doing both simultaneously Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
It is definitely a good option.
because after IEO, they will be listed officially on the exchange that has supported them calling for capital, they do not need to spend extra cost to list exchange.
Besides, raising capital with ICOs will help them have one more capital source to grow their businesses.
This is really a perfect match and very beneficial for start ups.
because after IEO, they will be listed officially on the exchange that has supported them calling for capital, they do not need to spend extra cost to list exchange.
Besides, raising capital with ICOs will help them have one more capital source to grow their businesses.
This is really a perfect match and very beneficial for start ups.
Projects that run ICO and IEO together can be found in projects that have bounties, it is illogical why they run them together but on average the IEO takes place on a small exchange.
Crypto projects fundraising has no regulation yet so i won't consider this as any form of illegal activity,projects developers have every rights to raise funds anyway they want,raising funds for project is seeking success for the project,without enough fund there won't be better ongoing production for the project 
Projects that run ICO and IEO together can be found in projects that have bounties, it is illogical why they run them together but on average the IEO takes place on a small exchange.
What I observed is that they stop the ICO then switch to IEO. Care to name which project does both ICO and IEO at the same time? With regards to the not disclosing the total funds raised, almost every project is doing that. It must be because of legal issues.
"legal Issues" is the crypto currency regulated? Because i think people can raise money for their projects through any means they desired to do. Either through ico or ieo and they can be used both in other to raise money. I have not come across any projects using both to raise funds for their projects but I did not see them breaking any laws by doing that. However, you should just be careful in investing in that type of projects as many investors have lost money through that.
Care to share which projects are running both IEO and ICO? So that we can see what's going on?
If I'm an investors of course it's going to be confusing, you should only need to choose either one of the two here. The only logical reason why projects are going to run in this model because they wanted to get the benefits of the two. But it doesn't make sense though, they should just stick to one model and see how successful they are. They are just going to confuse their investors here and definitely could backfire on them.
If I'm an investors of course it's going to be confusing, you should only need to choose either one of the two here. The only logical reason why projects are going to run in this model because they wanted to get the benefits of the two. But it doesn't make sense though, they should just stick to one model and see how successful they are. They are just going to confuse their investors here and definitely could backfire on them.
Raising
onry through ICOs is an almost impossible fit to achieve. Investors lost fate in ICOs the reason for introducing IEOs. Projects holding ICO and IEO at the go won't raise the same thing IEOs always raise more if its done in a good exchange like Binance or Kucoin.
onry through ICOs is an almost impossible fit to achieve. Investors lost fate in ICOs the reason for introducing IEOs. Projects holding ICO and IEO at the go won't raise the same thing IEOs always raise more if its done in a good exchange like Binance or Kucoin.
With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
There is nothing wrong with projects using multiple fundraising ways to achieve their goals,either its ICO or IEO its still all about fund raising,projects can switch from ICO to IEO if they feel its right for their project and we all know that IEO is more successful than ICO so its really not a bad idea Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
Raising
onry through ICOs is an almost impossible fit to achieve. Investors lost fate in ICOs the reason for introducing IEOs. Projects holding ICO and IEO at the go won't raise the same thing IEOs always raise more if its done in a good exchange like Binance or Kucoin.
onry through ICOs is an almost impossible fit to achieve. Investors lost fate in ICOs the reason for introducing IEOs. Projects holding ICO and IEO at the go won't raise the same thing IEOs always raise more if its done in a good exchange like Binance or Kucoin.
With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO by the projects.
Yeah just like scammers need new rebranded names to fool users. People got to know that majority of ICOs have failed after 2017 bear market and so they were reluctant to join any new one. So the scammers decided to launch a new named system namely IEO in order to do that same thing over and over again. Funny thing is "investors" did not seem to learn from their mistake. That is if they had experienced ICOs already.Quote
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Its obvious they wont share the amount. If I want to sell you a project, would I show you if its overbought? Defenitely not. So use your logic and boycott all such Initial scam offerings.Quote
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
Simple: To increase their scam coverage. 
What I observed is that they stop the ICO then switch to IEO. Care to name which project does both ICO and IEO at the same time? With regards to the not disclosing the total funds raised, almost every project is doing that. It must be because of legal issues.
With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
Jump to: