The question is ambiguous, but in my opinion, the project team should be public because in case of project failure, someone should be responsible, and also return funds to investors, and in cases of anonymity it becomes difficult
Clarity and transparency of the project and the development team can increase public trust. But for investor refunds if the project fails it is almost impossible. In the white paper, almost all Ico projects insist that there will be no refunds, so we must be prepared for those risks. 
Topic: If an ICO team is anonymous, is it a scam? - page 8. (Read 4401 times)
well because there are lot of fraud projects recently, investors are tend to look for the background of team members although not all ICO with anonymous team are scam but investors nowadays want to know the identity of the team behind the project since they are investing their hard earned money.
When deciphering between legit and scam ICO's, one of the main things everyone says is "you have a look at the team and see if they're transparent."
The thing is, the whole ideology behind decentralization is that it gives the public control over the economy's trajectory, rather than centralized and specific entities.
I see the Virternity Project, for example (https://virternity.com/), which prefers anonymity, but I'm not sure it means it's a scam ICO.
from their FAQ:
"Why aren't you revealing who is in your team?"
"The members of our team are enthusiastic about the idea of creating the Virternity space for the whole world. We want to avoid “buy-outs” of our specialists and co-workers, and also avoid pressure on them.
Also, given the limited financing at the initial stage, we are using anonymity as a shield for our technological secrets—the specifics of our current and future developments.
Many members of our team have serious jobs in major firms and do not want to advertise their participation in a non-commercial project, in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
In the future, once these factors are less of an issue, we plan to publicly name the founders and key personnel."
Satoshi remains anonymous..
Thoughts?
The thing is, the whole ideology behind decentralization is that it gives the public control over the economy's trajectory, rather than centralized and specific entities.
I see the Virternity Project, for example (https://virternity.com/), which prefers anonymity, but I'm not sure it means it's a scam ICO.
from their FAQ:
"Why aren't you revealing who is in your team?"
"The members of our team are enthusiastic about the idea of creating the Virternity space for the whole world. We want to avoid “buy-outs” of our specialists and co-workers, and also avoid pressure on them.
Also, given the limited financing at the initial stage, we are using anonymity as a shield for our technological secrets—the specifics of our current and future developments.
Many members of our team have serious jobs in major firms and do not want to advertise their participation in a non-commercial project, in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
In the future, once these factors are less of an issue, we plan to publicly name the founders and key personnel."
Satoshi remains anonymous..
Thoughts?
Nowadays, anonymity in the project is rampant but in ICO there should be a team running their platform. So it should not be anonymous for investors to know who they're dealing with in the business whether they trust the team or not.
The question is ambiguous, but in my opinion, the project team should be public because in case of project failure, someone should be responsible, and also return funds to investors, and in cases of anonymity it becomes difficult
Not always,but team has to be more professional and transparent. Showing their faces is a requirement at the moment.
I think ICO team should be open
I think ICO team should be open
Why will a team of a project decide to be anonymous and they are expecting people to invest in it. To me any team that can't come out clearly about their project and be proud of it is no go area either if it is scam or not scam.
I have never really cared about team photos. All i need is the project Whitepaper and how decentralized and viable the project is.
I find the fancy photos of team members a bit annoying and weird. The idea does not make sense in crypto World. I love the approach of the project(Virternity)you listed. A crypto project can be developed successfully without knowing or even trusting the team members
I find the fancy photos of team members a bit annoying and weird. The idea does not make sense in crypto World. I love the approach of the project(Virternity)you listed. A crypto project can be developed successfully without knowing or even trusting the team members
I am totally agree with recommendations to skip such projects and try to answer on this questions. Why they stay anonymously and how you plan get back your money if they are scammers?
In most cases, people who remain anonymous until the very end really do not want to show their faces, which means these people simply do not understand that in general the situation can only play for the worse for the project. 
Well If a ICO Project they should have a real team, if they want to keep the anonymous about their currency they should not making a ico. Example like non ico coins. maybe like DeepOnion a privacy coin
If an ICO does not show it's Team members and there is no proper contact from a live Team, mos likely 99.9999% the ICO is a scam. So I also only do videos of ICOS that have a proper team and also have a lot of activity going on in their social media chat rooms and other social media outlets like Twitter, Reddit and Facebook. Do not ever trust an ICO that does not show it's face to the world and does not show any DEV TEAM on their website with legitimate Linkedin Profiles.
If an ICO team is anonymous, it's not a 100% scam.
Let's remember Satoshi Nakamoto. He created the first and the biggest cryptocurrency in the world with a team.
He was anonymous. But we have a lot of scam projects in this year and investing in such a project is a too risky business for now.
Let's remember Satoshi Nakamoto. He created the first and the biggest cryptocurrency in the world with a team.
He was anonymous. But we have a lot of scam projects in this year and investing in such a project is a too risky business for now.
suspect with anonymous teams indeed reasonable but if deeper research would be important things to do. many projects start out with a team of anonymous but this does not show that this certainly contains a scam. many projects can succeed even scam by the anonymous team.
Maybe yes and maybe not. But the ICO Team should be open because a good project is a transparent project to prospective investors. Because if it is not transparent it might be possible to say that ICO is a scam. Because everyone needs openness between the project and the investors, so it's all good.
You are right. Moreover, the Ico project this year is less profitable, many are scam. So many people or investors who want clear information about the project and its support team. If there is a team member who is well known or professional enough in Ico and cryptocurrency, it will definitely have a positive impact on the project.
It all depends on your decision if I personally see the anonymous team is very risky. Especially if the team is not active, of course, this is very worrying. It is better to look for a team that is transparent and has a good experience. And do research before making a decision to take part in this project.
Maybe yes and maybe not. But the ICO Team should be open because a good project is a transparent project to prospective investors. Because if it is not transparent it might be possible to say that ICO is a scam. Because everyone needs openness between the project and the investors, so it's all good.
The thing is they are in control, they offer and we decide, if they will choose to be anonymous then we should decide based on what they offer. But nowadays, most of the ICOs are transparent with their teams, at least in the pictures only, further research is still be done by us as it's easy to put some pictures and names and these people might not exist or they may not have the skills to run the project.
Maybe yes and maybe not. But the ICO Team should be open because a good project is a transparent project to prospective investors. Because if it is not transparent it might be possible to say that ICO is a scam. Because everyone needs openness between the project and the investors, so it's all good.
you must completly avoid those if you like the project then just wit for them to hit exchange even those who have completly show themselves go run away
Well, i won't conclude that an ICO with an anonymous team is safe to invest in, but it will be wise you do your own research. Research the team and if you are not satisfied, just take your leave.
I believe knowing a project team members is one of the trust one need to check out when determining how good the project is and how real they're. You need to see who you are dealing with and try research on them again if the picture are real.
It's better to look for projects whose teams are transparent to minimize the risks that we will experience. Because in my opinion the project that the team is transparent (not anonymous) is still questionable, the project is a scam or not, let alone an anonymous one.
Just a few opinions.
Just a few opinions.
Jump to: