Topic: ICO and IEO running at same time for same project (Read 726 times)
Running the IEO and ICO concurrently is what surprises me. How can that be and how won't the prices and bonuses be different. I think that is a way of manoeuvering the earnings that should go to the exchange based on the amount raised on the platform.
Many projects nowadays are switching to IEO from ICO. The recent success of IEO and the boom and popularity it has gained over the past two years because of the increasing scamming happening in ICO has many projects to switch over from ICO to IEO. Many new projects that are not scams try their best to adapt to IEO. Not have heard any projects using both ICO and IEO simultaneously.
I do not appreciate these projects. They can be scam because doing ICO and IEO at the same time, it is best to choose only one form of fundraising for the project.
I don't think that's the case, maybe you are referring to pre-sale or private sale, before they go for IEO. I have seen many projects which started with ICO this year and along the line moved to IEO, I don't think I have seen any which did both. If they should do such, in my own opinion, then it will look fraudulent and many people might not participate. ICOs already have bad names so many investors are trying to keep their distance as far as possible.
Its not a new thing, few projects tried it out and it worked for them and some scam projects still use it as an advantage to create or lure investors to invest more in their shitcoin, switching from an ICO to IEO fund raising is really not bad at all
I think that running ICO and IEO at the same time is not so bad. If project running ICO we have some proof from exchange which choose this project that this coin is eligible and trusted. In the same time we can chose the way who we trust: exchange or project and send our investments by the chosen way.
Running the project at the same time is actually not the problem, they are free, but where will have problem which i feel that the scammers might even take advantage of is when a project is running both and they don't divide the fund, like for example now, they are to raise money to the tune of $40 million dollars, and then they start the ICO without actually defining the limit for the both and they succeeded in ICO by raising same amount while they also succeed on IEO also, so what should we call that? I only support them if as they were doing both, they quickly meet up with the hardcap and they stop, then we can say it is really worth it. I have never really seen a project that does this anyway, but i will like to see how it ended for the ones that have tried it.
Most investors (speculators) do not care how much the project has collected, the main thing is that there is a good profit after listing the token.
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.
This is also what I know. OP must have been confused that he thought that the ICO of a certain project is still running even when they announced an upcoming IEO. I also saw many projects that have done like this and most of them came from ICOs of 2018 in 3rd/4th quarter where their ICOs took forever just to raise a softcap/hardcap. So it is very impossible to happen because first of all, ICOs could lead to gas wars and then IEOs are lottery so rich investors will have advantage over this.
What i have observed is some ICO when they have collected funds they started to IEO funding as new option to again collect funds i feel suspicious of such projects
I don't think that doing ICO and IEO at the same time is a good idea. although it is possible, I rarely see it happen. sometimes some projects do ICO first before doing IEO to cover up the deficiencies that have not been achieved at the time of ICO. This was done to convince investors in this project. Yeah, but if I find a project like that, personally I will immediately invest in IEO.
I think it is not possible for both an ICO and an IEO to take place at the same time for the project, which is difficult, because if a project does not reach the soft cap, they can change the form of IEO. to add capital and extend sales time and may seek new investors from the IEO call.
I think that running ICO and IEO at the same time is not so bad. If project running ICO we have some proof from exchange which choose this project that this coin is eligible and trusted. In the same time we can chose the way who we trust: exchange or project and send our investments by the chosen way.
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?
As far as I know, projects that run IEO will definitely run ICO or ITO, this situation will be the choice of investors to facilitate potential investors to buy tokens/altcoin from new 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?
for the number of funds obtained from the ICO, I think if the developer gives transparency to community members, they will show Tx in each token purchase transaction, but the reality is not like that, we can see how many tokens have been sold if the new project provides information on the website they have
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?
Usually the project doesn't holding IEO and ICO in same time, IEO first and then ICO later after their IEO sold out.
About the amount of raised funds, we should not investing because high amount of funds already raised.
The important thing is we can verify the project is not scam, then we can invest on the project.
This to encourage the more demands to consider about the launchpad doesn't give enough demand.
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?
Usually the project doesn't holding IEO and ICO in same time, IEO first and then ICO later after their IEO sold out.
About the amount of raised funds, we should not investing because high amount of funds already raised.
The important thing is we can verify the project is not scam, then we can invest on the project.
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?
Of course with these methods, will the projects that are going to be going well in the future? You are right that it would be confusing, where the project focuses more on the ICO or IEO method. I believe the project is a scam, seen from the project flow is confusing. Always be aware
This is a smart move to me since most projects that run just ICOs are usually considered as scams and no one wants to invest in a project that could probably be a scam. So, I think running both an ICO and an IEO at the same time for project gives it a better shot at succeeding on funding operations as its a diversified sourcing of funds.
But, that is a bigger scam and they have proven themselves to be what people say they are, so if they have a cap of 20 million dollars, they would try to raise 20 million dollars through ICO an also do the same on IEO, even if they felt they can balance it, what if both becomes successful, what would they do with the excess that is on it, me I personally don’t support any project running both together, because it would only make them loose focus because the money would have been too much. It is only style of harmony that I support, harmony, what harmony project did first was to conduct ICO, which they later abandoned after they were not meeting up and then proceeded to joining IEO to complete it and they never started all over, they started raising the fund where they stopped on ICO.
Yeah, it is possible. I have seen it many times that they manage ICO for few months and for a limited time (few days) they list their initial tokens on the exchange. I saw this type of token sale on BitForex and VinDax.
Nothing new, especially nowadays. Project start to collect funds on their website or ICO page, mentioning that it would not be enough, makes a deal with an exchange to attract new customers and doing two sales at the same time.
This is not new as projects only sell a fraction of their tokens as IEO, the remaining tokens are usually sold as ICO. Major part of the tokens are usually sold in private sales.
For Private Sale, that is usually done often at the beginning before entering the other sales stages. The question @OP is doing ICO and IEO together. Because doing it together will make people confused and the funds will be divided during the sale. Therefore it is better determined before selling, It is better to do in IEO or ICO.
Even the fund will be divided but it will go to the same person or project.
This really don't make sense to me and doesn't look legit either, like why doing ICO again when you can fully go for IEO. Unless you are referring to private sale which the team handles themselves before going for IEO, if that's the case then it's not a new thing and doesn't call from alarm too as it has been happening. But if the reverse is the case, someone like me won't bother investing because this is my first time of seeing such and in this case there will be lack of transparency.
This is not new as projects only sell a fraction of their tokens as IEO, the remaining tokens are usually sold as ICO. Major part of the tokens are usually sold in private sales.
For Private Sale, that is usually done often at the beginning before entering the other sales stages. The question @OP is doing ICO and IEO together. Because doing it together will make people confused and the funds will be divided during the sale. Therefore it is better determined before selling, It is better to do in IEO or ICO.
Just as not every ICO seen can be trusted, not every IEO should also be trusted, because some of them can also be lunched by scammers.
I have not also seen a project run two different forms of fundraising programs at the same time, except for some who would first announce ICO, then later change their minds to do IEO, which is not so common, because of unpreparedness. A well prepared project team would have known the direction it is going.
I have not also seen a project run two different forms of fundraising programs at the same time, except for some who would first announce ICO, then later change their minds to do IEO, which is not so common, because of unpreparedness. A well prepared project team would have known the direction it is going.
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 have never met projects that would hold both ICO and IEO. What should confuse investors? In this way, more chances to collect the required amount, the only thing that should arouse suspicion is the non-disclosure of the collected funds 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?
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 do not think this true or even possible, even if they should it will look suspicious and most people won't participate. The word ICO now give people shivers as no one wants to risk their funds again or begging the team to list so they can trade their token etc. However, what I have noticed is that new projects which were running ICO previously all switched to IEO when it was evident they are bound to fail. With this reasons, I think the ICOs might never come back and even if they do, the participation won't be much like before. 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?
If I'm going to invest in a new project I would choose IEO rather than ICO. IEO is much more legit because we can buy the token in good exchange and for sure it will be listed in that exchange. Beside it is a advantage on both new project and the exchange by promoting.
Some projects are running this. They are conducting ICO for their project for private selling and they are asking for an exchange to run their initial coin offering.
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?
Yes, many projects initially conduct ICOs for some time, and even with a previously known date for IEO on the exchange. This is generally a good strategy that takes advantage of both forms of fundraising.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?
For bounty hunters, this is generally very beneficial. I am pleased to join the signing campaign of such an ICO - IEO, because the time of fundraising and the time of the signing campaign are reduced, and the likelihood of a positive result is much greater. It also revives the activities of the ICO at least a little.
This can only happen when the project's IEO is on the light weight exchanges of this space. Maybe they are worried on investors' opinion, some might prefer ICO to IEO. At the end of the day they will lie on the fund raised or couldn't get a bit higher than the softcap. Investors are smarter and its not about the style of raising money. You will be so surprised that a project with credible team can come out and raise ICO within 1 hour even with the present market state. Imagine if Larry page or Jack Dorsey attempt an ICO, this are what we are waiting for as institutions
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 really hate when this happens with desperate projects who just want to sell there tokens and nothing more. You would then see their ico price far higher than their ieo price, all because they want to sell some tokens desperately. This mainly happens with small projects though, the big project plan things out properly and care for their investors 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?
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?
Basically they are running IEO on their partner exchanges, and ICO on their own.
If the project is good, they can help to promote the exchange and attracting more users to use the exchange.
Nothing confusing, they just selling their coins on multiple platforms.
the team have that intentions to promote their coin and aiming to have a wide support, then there's no problem if both is being used.
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?
Some investors do not like to send their IDs or pass KYC, they prefer to join in ICO, like you said some project do ICO and IEO, ICO not required KYC but IEO required KYC.
It is important project run IEO this be sure we can trade this coin after IEO.
It’s all about fundraising, any project that wants to adapt multiple ways to fundraise. It’s fine as long as they are not scams and completely ok.
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?
Basically they are running IEO on their partner exchanges, and ICO on their own.
If the project is good, they can help to promote the exchange and attracting more users to use the exchange.
Nothing confusing, they just selling their coins on multiple platforms.
This is a smart move to me since most projects that run just ICOs are usually considered as scams and no one wants to invest in a project that could probably be a scam. So, I think running both an ICO and an IEO at the same time for project gives it a better shot at succeeding on funding operations as its a diversified sourcing of funds.
IEO and ICO are running on the same transition to collect funds from investors, but not so for IEO, IEO has now attracted the attention of investors. Investor confidence has been lost in the ICO they switched to IEO which is more profitable now. Short-term returns are a good investment in IEO.
We can't generalize that statement, IEO maybe more successful that ICO because it's the current trend now, but not all exchanges that offers IEO are successful. TBH, there are only few exchange I know that are successful with their IEO and one good example is Binance, people are waiting for a project to be in Binance launch pad so they can invest because based on trend, investors can make short term return of their money with a good profit.
IEO and ICO are running on the same transition to collect funds from investors, but not so for IEO, IEO has now attracted the attention of investors. Investor confidence has been lost in the ICO they switched to IEO which is more profitable now. Short-term returns are a good investment in IEO.
You've mentioned it already.
FUND RAISED.
They do both ICO and IEO projects because of the usual reason-"To Raise Money" from many investors with these both projects. Actually, yes it was confusing as an investor where to choose the best and appropriate project to invest in. But since ICO's reputation isn't that good as of now, most of the investors turn to IEO projects.
FUND RAISED.
They do both ICO and IEO projects because of the usual reason-"To Raise Money" from many investors with these both projects. Actually, yes it was confusing as an investor where to choose the best and appropriate project to invest in. But since ICO's reputation isn't that good as of now, most of the investors turn to IEO projects.
I think if these two fundraisers are used together it will only make the developed project more complicated but for fund collection it will be faster because it uses 2 fundraising methods that are trending among cryptocurrency investments.
Desperate times need desperate methods, thats why projects run ICO and IEO at the same time. They try all methods to get fundraising in order to be succeed
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?
When IEO and ICO are run together, I don't think it will confuse investors. Investors can choose to invest through IEO in exchangers or buy tokens directly from the developer team. Such methods are rarely done but there are projects that do it and in my opinion it is safer to transact in IEO held by exchangers
why are they running at the same time both while i find ieo more suitable ico at the moment?
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?
I think that on the contrary it will bring more investment in companies that conduct both ICO and IEO, because many investors prefer to invest in IEO right now, while other investors prefer to invest in ICO. Unfortunately, a huge number of companies hides the amount of the money that was collected through ICO or IEO and this of course does not please investors, because every investor wants to know whether to keep the purchased tokens further or sell, because of low amount raised by company during ICO or IEO.
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?
IF they do an ICO and an IEO at the same time then thats a very bad decision. IF they done an ICO with their IEO already conducted then that means they dont trust the exchange their conducting to. They knew that they will not gonna raise much on that exchange thats why they decided to do ICO.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?
Actually it is very good if the project does it simultaneously. Because the trend now is IEO and ICO era has begun to disappear. Surely the project thought about it and looked for investors who preferred to do it. So it's very rare for a project to do that simultaneously.
Seems like you all just reiterate what everyone says and nod your heads at everything happening without realizing what happens in the background. Both of them are attempts at crowdfunding. Now if a project does both does it not come to your mind that they project is trying to "oversell" its token -in other words, the project may be overbought? Does it not ever come to you that the market manipulation is too high here?
That the devs are going to sell off their tokens right after the listing? And leave the investors speculating for years and the price comes down exponentially and the devs abandon the project, only coming once a while in the blue moon to say a minor development. All in all nothing but a scam.
Why would a legit project ever use an ICO and IEO simultaneously? This is a big red flag for a scam IMHO.
Hmm are you sure dude? I ever participated at bounty which is running ICO and IEO together but in case "they started the private sale first", then put IEO in last stage". project still alive and now,preparing their exchange for launching. That project name are XCRYPT.
Its actually more common that projects are doing IEOs on two or more different exchanges (more chance to reach their funding goal), but I am not sure if I have ever witnessed running ICO and IEO of the same project at the same time, interesting and highly unusual.
Not an easy thing to do both simultaneously. It is also not a good idea to collect funds by having 2 methods, namely ICO and IEO. The project will choose the current trend, IEO. That's what they will do, not do it together.
One project that runs ICO and IEO together indeed makes investors confused about choosing, moreover they are not transparent in providing information.
But that is their way of attracting investors, and I would choose to participate in IEO even if it was on a small exchange.
But that is their way of attracting investors, and I would choose to participate in IEO even if it was on a small exchange.
Holding ICO and IEO at the same time is a strange move I think. But technically it's normal. Some guys will buy these tokens on exchange and some - on the main website. And everybody will be able to trade it, afterwards.
its very strange if we buy token in main website meanwhile this token alreadt traded in any exchanges.profesionakl investors prefer to buy in exchanges, so if they get profits they could sell it faster no need to tranfer from website to exchanges wallet. I will never trust such moves, I do not see any sense in them. For me, this is the first signal that the project can be supervised by scammers who do not understand what they are doing,
and they put all their eggs in one basket and say "buy faster."
They do the both token sales in order to collect more funds but these ways are not going to add extra legitimacy to the project in my opinion. Understanding such moves is hard for me, the concrete token sale mode will be appreciated by the crypto community.and they put all their eggs in one basket and say "buy faster."
Knowing how important to protect their reputation and that's how they should never have to do that cause it only give some speculation of another way of scamming activities. There is no sense to have this project if they keep lying to us.
~snip~ 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
It is strange enough for me, what for they provide two kinds of token sales at the same time. Moreover, they seem not open to the public for fundraising transparency. If anybody finds out this kind of project, I suggest to not join in it. It is better to look at the others and avoid a potential scam project.
I will never trust such moves, I do not see any sense in them. For me, this is the first signal that the project can be supervised by scammers who do not understand what they are doing,
and they put all their eggs in one basket and say "buy faster."
They do the both token sales in order to collect more funds but these ways are not going to add extra legitimacy to the project in my opinion. Understanding such moves is hard for me, the concrete token sale mode will be appreciated by the crypto community. and they put all their eggs in one basket and say "buy faster."
Simultaneously? or ICO has been held first, then IEO now? As far as I know, there were a number of projects that had held ICOs last year, and this year when IEO became more popular, IEO was also carried out but for a relatively small amount, I think it was only a marketing strategy to form stronger trading networks and investor trust.
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?
New projects want to raise the maximum amount of money, which is why they resort to various methods of attracting investors, which is why they conduct both ICO and IEO at the same time.
If the project hides information about the amount of funds raised, then I try not to invest in such a project. I believe that honest people do not need to hide the amount of money received.
Holding ICO and IEO at the same time is a strange move I think. But technically it's normal. Some guys will buy these tokens on exchange and some - on the main website. And everybody will be able to trade it, afterwards.
What you see is those project who had their ICO before,
And then, they decided to do the last phase of the sale with IEO to gather more investors.
They want to have a higheer success that is why they do this.
And then, they decided to do the last phase of the sale with IEO to gather more investors.
They want to have a higheer success that is why they do this.
During the beginning of 2019 some ICOs mentioned that they need to switch to an IEO model, if they want to collect enough funds. But some of them are doing both, which I do not like, because it leads to price differences etc.
I will never trust such moves, I do not see any sense in them. For me, this is the first signal that the project can be supervised by scammers who do not understand what they are doing,
and they put all their eggs in one basket and say "buy faster."
and they put all their eggs in one basket and say "buy faster."
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 make it a point of duty to keep away from any project simultaneously holding ICO and IEO. For me it looks like a scam. The greed that drives some devs makes them do uncanny things such as that and investors should he weary of them. 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?
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?
Its because there are some people who doesnt like to buy from exchanges. They prefer to buy directly from
the team. Thats the reason the project teams are doing both IEO and ICO to raise funds. Nowadays many are
doing this and there is nothing wrong in that.
For me, it looks like red flag. I dont understand for what they need to do it
Some projects which did ICO in the past and didn't hit hardcap are now porting to IEO to achieve their crowdfunding goal. An example is Pledgecamp which did ICO and recently IEO on OKEX. The confusing aspect is when start-ups do both ICO and IEO from onset at same time, I don't really think it makes much sense. They could have opted for a reputable exchange that will make their token sale very successful.
I think they simply want to make as much money as possible, Many projects sell privately to investors at very low prices then they conduct IEO, When they conduct IEO they can collect more money and be listed. Be wary of non-transparent projects
certainly the project was too greedy and they were not confident. if they believe the project can be successful, they will only use one of them. doing IEO and ICO together obviously makes investors confused. if they want to do both, they should do it separately. IEO or ICO first, this makes the project organized.
I don’t think there is any project that would be that greedy to run both at the same time, it is absolutely impossible and any project that does that is certainly a scam project, because of the ico market that has been damaged, many developers do not meet up with their target again, which I would call softcap and hardcap, so what they do is to either start with ico, which if they find out that the ico is not moving, they pause it to continue on IEO in that case of harmony. Another project that we could see run ICO twice are some project that start from phase 1 fund raising first, and then use it for development to some extent which they come back for the second round for the completed part of the project, so I therefore disagree that both of them would be used same time by a developer who is not s scammer.
I prefer IEO to ICO. I will not participate in a project that does both. this only adds to the token sales duration and I don't like it. when the market is unstable, it's hard to calm down on projects that have a long duration. This makes me keep thinking if the price of their tokens is not according to predictions and other coins like BTC, ETH and others turn out to be higher, this will make me lose more.
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?
certainly the project was too greedy and they were not confident. if they believe the project can be successful, they will only use one of them. doing IEO and ICO together obviously makes investors confused. if they want to do both, they should do it separately. IEO or ICO first, this makes the project organized.
i like the concept of ICO and IEO. because on ICO everyone can buy tokens and on IEO only users of these exchanges
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?
This is a strategy for some IEOs they will say they hit soft cap or finished all rounds of token sale but the truth cannot be seen since the exchange is the one facilitating the token sale. I like about ICO is some token sale is very transparent they even share the report and as well as the token address to see and view by the public what is really the score of their sales. Dont trust so much of some IEO especially on low quality exchange.
in my opinion using both IEO and ICO methods simultaneously can increase sales and also interesting innovations. as long as the project is real and can achieve success then not be confused for investors.
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?
It's costly to do IEO on top exchanges, that is why they first held an ICO and the funds they've generate from this crowdfunding will be used to do an IEO for top exchange, where they can get more funds and get more investors to look and support this projects.
Developers know so well that many investors prefer to invest using IEO so they want to do it before they launch their platform, it's a good strategy and I have seen so many projects done it, like Dexage and Adab I think has also done it.
hero member
Activity: 2912
Merit: 541
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
The investor will have their right to choose any of project even if they are running an ICO and IEO at the same time as you mention. The smart investor will only choose the project after they investigate to gather all of the information about the project so then they can decide to invest with them or leave them. It's no big deal for the smart investor because they don't need to invest in any project if they thought that the project is not worth their money and they'd rather wait for a while until they can find the right project.
I think if there are projects that run both of these methods at the same time it doesn't matter because both of these methods have a function for raising funds only when IEO will be quickly registered at the exchange place.
This is my first time of hearing such, what I normally hear is, they are conducting IEO in different exchanges or they have abandoned ICO and switched to IEO. I don't think it makes sense though, and even if they should, people might find it hard getting involved as it is confusing from all angles and might lead to negligence of the project by potential investors because they will consider it scam.
With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO by the projects.
I think now days IEO is much popular than ICO. If some project have much capability to run IEO then why they still ICO i have no idea. It's must be a fishy thing that project. So be careful before you invest on it.
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?
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?
That's not a good thought for a good projects. A good and trust able project share with their investors a lot for building a trust and honest. So my opinion stay way from that kinda project who don't share some common things at least.
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?
Well, I guess people need to start avoiding projects that are not transparent. The lack of transparency is of little use to Crypto space... It is even run contrary to the philosophy. What are they hiding the commonwealth or collective projects for?
Quote
I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time.
The copies are probably clones from scammers or the startups are trying not to put all their eggs in one basket
It's not possible to run both ICO and IEO, may be scammers are doing that. Or the project is a scam.
That does not look effective, the question is for what? raise funds? Or are they currently comparing the number of participants for research? It's different if, their project only hunts for money
It seems that I have never seen the project using both methods of raising capital. However, the pre-sale or pulic sale program on their own website is also an ICO, and when they cannot achieve the sales, they will find another solution, which is IEO.
Why would a legit project ever use an ICO and IEO simultaneously? This is a big red flag for a scam IMHO.
However, ICO will be less and less used as IEO came with much more advantages for both project owners and investors. So, opting for an IEO would definitely not let you the option to choose an ICO, too.
However, ICO will be less and less used as IEO came with much more advantages for both project owners and investors. So, opting for an IEO would definitely not let you the option to choose an ICO, too.
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: