Topic: ICO evaluation methods (Read 145 times)
I agree with this handbook. The evaluation of the team and the basic idea are the true measurement elements of an ICO.
Absolutely agree, for myself, I chose such managers in campaigns which I try to monitor
needmoney https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/needmoney-86907
olcaytu2005 https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/olcaytu2005-401363
Sylon https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/sylon-112240
hua_hui https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/huahui-332981
yahoo62278 https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/yahoo62278-355846
aTriz https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/atriz-135920
Wapinter https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/wapinter-527272
it would not be bad if someone else shared their observations
needmoney https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/needmoney-86907
olcaytu2005 https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/olcaytu2005-401363
Sylon https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/sylon-112240
hua_hui https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/huahui-332981
yahoo62278 https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/yahoo62278-355846
aTriz https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/atriz-135920
Wapinter https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/wapinter-527272
it would not be bad if someone else shared their observations
Besides all those mentioned by the author of this thread. There is one more criteria on how to identify or evaluate an ICO.
If an ICO is conducting a bounty program here, check who's the one managing the campaign. If the manager for that campaign is an individual that is not directly connected to that ICO and has a very high credit, good reputation here in the Forum, then that ICO is worth investing for. Most of these managers have the best knowledge on identifying a good ICO.
If an ICO is conducting a bounty program here, check who's the one managing the campaign. If the manager for that campaign is an individual that is not directly connected to that ICO and has a very high credit, good reputation here in the Forum, then that ICO is worth investing for. Most of these managers have the best knowledge on identifying a good ICO.
This article describes the methodology for estimating the ICO, which is based on such criteria:
the team;
presence of a working business model;
the ICO structure;
communications;
Whitepaper.
Each ICO project is evaluated on all five points, after which the total score is determined. The maximum score is 10.
The team.
A professional team is a key to the success of any project. Successful interaction of outstanding and purposeful practitioners and theorists more than once led to the creation of an excellent product. Thus, we offer the following system of project evaluation:
+2 — the team consists of experienced people who have been working in the industry for many years and have experience in creating real-world products;
+1 — the main team members easily go to the teams and have some experience in the IT sphere and/or related industries;
0 — there are no links to the team members, information about them cannot be checked.
Presence of a functioning business idea.
Having an experienced team is half the battle. For the successful operation of the project, a working business model is needed that has the potential for earning money in the future.
+2 — the team has been conducting a real business project for more than a year outside the blockhouse, which brings a stable profit and is covered in the media. The company has a clear development strategy. Existing competitors can be overtaken by experience, or competitors do not create obstacles to the company;
+1 — the business model is transparent and has the potential for development. Blocking technology brings value to customers;
0 — the business model is blurred and incomprehensible. The value that the client can receive is unclear. The competition in the industry is too great.
Structure of the ICO.
Even if a great team came out on the ICO with a brilliant idea, it could still be a scam. An important indicator is the ICO conditions, namely:
+2 — the share of the founders of the team does not exceed some reasonable threshold (reference point is 25% of all tokens), or team tokens are blocked after the ICO. The soft and hard cap is not cloudy, high caps are justified;
+1 — The team’s share in the ICO is moderate, although it is not blocked. The ratio of a hard/soft cap is small;
0 — the team’s share is large, the hard cap is missing, or unreasonably large.
Communication.
Even the best team can raise doubts if it has no contact with potential investors.
+2 — the team has a number of information channels, where it actively responds to users’ questions and easily contacts; +1 — ICO is represented by several information resources, which are sometimes answered by ICO participants;
0 — there are no information resources, or feedback about the team is negative.
Whitepaper.
The so-called “white book” or “white paper”, as it is often translated into Russian sources (we prefer Whitepaper) is an important source of information about the ICO. Sometimes five minutes is enough to understand — ICO is not ICO, but a pure scam.
+2 — Whitepaper is written informatively, covers all information — ICO conditions, team description, development strategy;
+1 — the documentation contains almost all the necessary information, but some of the time looks strange;
0 — Whitepaper is made poorly, there is a lot of useful information about the ICO.
Summary.
The proposed methodology for estimating the ICO does not allow for certain identification of successful projects. Moreover, there were situations when the visually attractive ICO turned out to be a frank scam. Nevertheless, this methodology allows you to filter out those projects that will be scam-with a high probability. And where to invest your money — in the end, it’s up to you!
the team;
presence of a working business model;
the ICO structure;
communications;
Whitepaper.
Each ICO project is evaluated on all five points, after which the total score is determined. The maximum score is 10.
The team.
A professional team is a key to the success of any project. Successful interaction of outstanding and purposeful practitioners and theorists more than once led to the creation of an excellent product. Thus, we offer the following system of project evaluation:
+2 — the team consists of experienced people who have been working in the industry for many years and have experience in creating real-world products;
+1 — the main team members easily go to the teams and have some experience in the IT sphere and/or related industries;
0 — there are no links to the team members, information about them cannot be checked.
Presence of a functioning business idea.
Having an experienced team is half the battle. For the successful operation of the project, a working business model is needed that has the potential for earning money in the future.
+2 — the team has been conducting a real business project for more than a year outside the blockhouse, which brings a stable profit and is covered in the media. The company has a clear development strategy. Existing competitors can be overtaken by experience, or competitors do not create obstacles to the company;
+1 — the business model is transparent and has the potential for development. Blocking technology brings value to customers;
0 — the business model is blurred and incomprehensible. The value that the client can receive is unclear. The competition in the industry is too great.
Structure of the ICO.
Even if a great team came out on the ICO with a brilliant idea, it could still be a scam. An important indicator is the ICO conditions, namely:
+2 — the share of the founders of the team does not exceed some reasonable threshold (reference point is 25% of all tokens), or team tokens are blocked after the ICO. The soft and hard cap is not cloudy, high caps are justified;
+1 — The team’s share in the ICO is moderate, although it is not blocked. The ratio of a hard/soft cap is small;
0 — the team’s share is large, the hard cap is missing, or unreasonably large.
Communication.
Even the best team can raise doubts if it has no contact with potential investors.
+2 — the team has a number of information channels, where it actively responds to users’ questions and easily contacts; +1 — ICO is represented by several information resources, which are sometimes answered by ICO participants;
0 — there are no information resources, or feedback about the team is negative.
Whitepaper.
The so-called “white book” or “white paper”, as it is often translated into Russian sources (we prefer Whitepaper) is an important source of information about the ICO. Sometimes five minutes is enough to understand — ICO is not ICO, but a pure scam.
+2 — Whitepaper is written informatively, covers all information — ICO conditions, team description, development strategy;
+1 — the documentation contains almost all the necessary information, but some of the time looks strange;
0 — Whitepaper is made poorly, there is a lot of useful information about the ICO.
Summary.
The proposed methodology for estimating the ICO does not allow for certain identification of successful projects. Moreover, there were situations when the visually attractive ICO turned out to be a frank scam. Nevertheless, this methodology allows you to filter out those projects that will be scam-with a high probability. And where to invest your money — in the end, it’s up to you!
Jump to: