Absolutely not. I have already seen projects that have raised over 40 million USD and are still not live on exchanges or they have lost around 50 percent from the ICO price. It is sad but the amount of money raised does not guarantee anything.
I have seen 30 million funding project still not going to exchange just some investors traded in forkdelta and idex free exchange. There are many million raising project still not listed in a single exchange but few projects not raised soft cap but now live on couple of exchange but definitely those are legit project. 
Topic: Ico fund raising - page 6. (Read 2513 times)
The amount of raised money only say that the marketing team and bounty hunters made a great job. But it does not say something about the further project development and the potential success of this company.
Honestly, the bounty is not helpful for projects in 2018. Most accounts involved in bounty are bots so it does not help many people know their projects.
Found raising is a way the project developers use to raise money for they projects and business and most of the ICO in the latest time have use the means of found raising to make the self's rich at the detriment of the investors if not most genuine team don't really need to raise any found before they can develope their coin.
In my opinion if indeed there is no financial capital at all then it never hurts to do fundraising first to start the project. But my suggestion is that the ICO still remembers those who gave injections of funds in the beginning that caused the project to run so that when successful, ICO should provide a return. Without injection of funds at the beginning, the project will not get many investors and can be successful.
fund raising in ico is average these days but even after raising the fund by ico companies still they struggle to develop the project the main reason is because of bear market
Does the amount of money raised in an ico determine the success of the project??
Is a necessity to do a fund raiser in order to start up a project??
Did satoshi nakamoto and vitalik also started a fund raised??
One thing is certain in the past, the higher the mobilized amount, the better and appreciate the potential of that project. now, money is only a small concern for investors. They often look at partners, their development areas to assess the potential for expansion and development, the team and the way of financial distribution, ...Is a necessity to do a fund raiser in order to start up a project??
Did satoshi nakamoto and vitalik also started a fund raised??
That is the key factor to bring sympathy to investors now.
The amount of raised money only say that the marketing team and bounty hunters made a great job. But it does not say something about the further project development and the potential success of this company.
Not always true the more funds you have the better chance of success, it really depends on the team and their level of skill.
Of course, projects that collect a lot of money will be more successful. But there are also many projects that have collected hardcap but they are still scam because they created that project to trick all investors. I have seen a lot
Some projects don't have a better or real use case so so even if they raise enough funds for their project that has no real use or solve any human problem will definitely fail.
and it happen now, much ico projects has no usage in their tokens.actually it will be useless if we invest in this projects.or even we will suffering alot of money ,if this projects abandoned their investors. 
Does the amount of money raised in an ico determine the success of the project??
No, I have seen projects that hardly collected soft cap and they are successfully developing.Is a necessity to do a fund raiser in order to start up a project??
NoDid satoshi nakamoto and vitalik also started a fund raised??
Only vitalik started a fund raised
Some projects don't have a better or real use case so so even if they raise enough funds for their project that has no real use or solve any human problem will definitely fail.
ICO is used for a team to raise fund for their project although there are other projects that were funded by the team members while others were able to get investors on their own without resorting to crowdfunding. The success of ICO does not indicate that the project will be successful. Some team are a bunch of scammers who will collect money from people and ran away.
One of the best way to raise funds or money is ICO because of the way that investors will invest there investments and make profits. but before they invest they make sure of project if ir legit because if the project is legit it will earn big and investors will give their investment.
Amount raised by a project, does not in anyway determine if it's successful or not if they have no real use or working products the coin is absolutely useless. Also a project does not need to have a public funding. Some have what is called a private sale while some are self funded. I don't know about satoshi but ethereum had a crowd funding
Yes. To start the project requires money. Satoshi Nakamoto and Vitalik also spent money to run the project. Maybe they find it harder to raise money than today's ICO developers. Because no one believes in coins or Bitcoin when Satoshi Bakamoto runs his business. The most expensive and valuable cryptocurrency is the idea of launching a project.
If you look at projects like EOS and Tezos then you will see that money does help but it is not guaranteed. They broke records but tezos remains outside the top twenty, and EOS has not been able to topple ethereum
From the little info I have with me, Vitalik did a crowdsale but Satoshi didn't.
Most people organized this ICOs because it was the time for ICOs in the year of 2017. The majority of the projects that time were not with any vision beyond selling of the tokens on exchanges.
The success of a project should not be based of the amount of money raised. Even these days, new decentralized exchanges raise funds, this does not make sense because no one will use your funds. You do not have to hold fiat for customers to exchange with tokens yet they issue their own tokens for no reason.
ICOs are just a way to make money out of thin air because after the tokensale, community members who invested in the project do not have a say. The devs make everything in favor of themselves.
Most people organized this ICOs because it was the time for ICOs in the year of 2017. The majority of the projects that time were not with any vision beyond selling of the tokens on exchanges.
The success of a project should not be based of the amount of money raised. Even these days, new decentralized exchanges raise funds, this does not make sense because no one will use your funds. You do not have to hold fiat for customers to exchange with tokens yet they issue their own tokens for no reason.
ICOs are just a way to make money out of thin air because after the tokensale, community members who invested in the project do not have a say. The devs make everything in favor of themselves.
Look, there is about demand. If ICO won't collect hard cap, then demand isn't sufficient, then price goes down.
Speaking about ICOs, then somebody team can realise a good product without big money
Speaking about ICOs, then somebody team can realise a good product without big money
Most of the successful projects i have seen, were able to raise adequate fund for their projects. This is why they usually have soft cap and hard cap. The only thing that will make a project that reached hard cap not to succeed, is if it is a scam project and we have seen so many of them in the crypto space. They take investors' money without doing anything meaningful.
Jump to: