<...>
This then made me to conclude that not every project is fit for blockchain integration. Had it been they had done it and execute their project without the mindset of raising fund from investors, they might have remained till now and not only that, a lot of internet and social media users would have found a replacement for other bug social media platform that we have today and better still, the space would have been highly competitive. 
Topic: Investors failed the community during early ICO era (Read 297 times)
that is very true but you are missing a very important fact about investors. they do not care about a working product, they never have and they never will. all they care about is making money. there are cases that they have even invested and traded coins that do not exist in the real world (have no blockchain anymore!!!) only because the said coin was getting pumped and could give them a lot of profit.
that is also the only reason why anybody has ever invested in any ICO otherwise none of them have any working product or solve anything. there is no company either. people buy into the lie in hopes of profit making.
that is also the only reason why anybody has ever invested in any ICO otherwise none of them have any working product or solve anything. there is no company either. people buy into the lie in hopes of profit making.
We should blame both investors and developers. Few of investors actually used the tokens they received for the intended purpose once the platform was released. Instead, they just sold off their tokens as soon as the price hit a certain level. Developers often lack experience, they abandon their project as soon as the project begins to sink.
Investor boring with many ICO project failed without listing on exchange market and lower price after listing, after first and second ICO have failed maybe investor low interested to get start again with ICO investment project, better to get back investor make new ICO have good planning and listing with big market.
All of the stated reasons are not generally wrong, but the single reason is not enough to blame the investors. Investors also look for the working product in the project and after they are convinced investing in the project makes sense for them. On another hand, even the working product promoted by the projects doesn't give the expected attention back to the project. Both parties are guilty in this case, blaming the community or the investors is not fair in my opinion.
I always wondered why I never saw pledge like bounties on projects, which would have ensured that a product was actually being developed even if was for the testnet. As investors you set the rules, your the one that the project needs not vice versa. Investors failed to established a norm that would have prevented all this chaos and still are. ICO's are not the problem investors are. I was just looking at how Namecoin used https://www.bountysource.com/ to offer a risk-free way of investors to be able to donate while being ensured that a product is actually built. We have failed to utilized the tools that have been right in front of us. Being blinded by greed.
That was the main problem in cryptocurrency space, we are being controlled of the projects team. We as an investor should have set a norm that will benefit both sides to complete the development of the project. But as most of the investors dont care about this, they just keep on trusting the team that they will give good ROIs for them. Investor have tired with many ICO scam by lower price after listing on exchange market, the investor community try for joining new investment way how to earn profit with low risk and IEO is not best option, maybe they are waiting what new investing project at the future after ICO and IEO moment have ended.
it is true, investors are not interested in ICO, and IEO also does not provide the right solution. and now maybe the market is waiting for a new, safer system and there will be no more scammers who are free to deceive investors. 
I always wondered why I never saw pledge like bounties on projects, which would have ensured that a product was actually being developed even if was for the testnet. As investors you set the rules, your the one that the project needs not vice versa. Investors failed to established a norm that would have prevented all this chaos and still are. ICO's are not the problem investors are. I was just looking at how Namecoin used https://www.bountysource.com/ to offer a risk-free way of investors to be able to donate while being ensured that a product is actually built. We have failed to utilized the tools that have been right in front of us. Being blinded by greed.
Both investors and the developers are to be blame, sometimes the developers will be so serious with there project and investors won't give face to the project at all, and sometimes the project will have good idea but managed by bad developers and once investors invest in that kind of project they lose faith in others, do not blame investors, too many scam projects makes investors stop trusting projects
Investor have tired with many ICO scam by lower price after listing on exchange market, the investor community try for joining new investment way how to earn profit with low risk and IEO is not best option, maybe they are waiting what new investing project at the future after ICO and IEO moment have ended.
It's a commitment between the two, no one should be blame. Both parties have their own responsibilities. Investors should not just dump easily their alt as because they only want it while developers should keep their investors trust by doing upgrades that can boost their value. It would be better if investors and developers have an agreement of something like laws or waives that will backed their investment in a period of time with an equivalent progress created by the developers before ICO. It will be a win win move for both.
True, we cannot blame juat the investor or developers alone because i have witnessed ICOs wherein the developers who have short vision just stop updating the project and slows down once the coin is listed and they choose poor exchange platforms which kills the value of tokens. Policypal token is one of the best example as this project got what it required to be successful but they choose third class exchange like coinbene which killed the token because oftheir bot trading.
the use with work on extensive as might investors gains with value on appropriation as releasing offers of returns with work on exhibition helps as securing of least on worst with waste to keep on focusing of work with use as beginning customs on tasks with arrange on qualification.
I always wondered why I never saw pledge like bounties on projects, which would have ensured that a product was actually being developed even if was for the testnet. As investors you set the rules, your the one that the project needs not vice versa. Investors failed to established a norm that would have prevented all this chaos and still are. ICO's are not the problem investors are. I was just looking at how Namecoin used https://www.bountysource.com/ to offer a risk-free way of investors to be able to donate while being ensured that a product is actually built. We have failed to utilized the tools that have been right in front of us. Being blinded by greed.
Both investors and the developers are to be blame, sometimes the developers will be so serious with there project and investors won't give face to the project at all, and sometimes the project will have good idea but managed by bad developers and once investors invest in that kind of project they lose faith in others, do not blame investors, too many scam projects makes investors stop trusting projects
It's a commitment between the two, no one should be blame. Both parties have their own responsibilities. Investors should not just dump easily their alt as because they only want it while developers should keep their investors trust by doing upgrades that can boost their value. It would be better if investors and developers have an agreement of something like laws or waives that will backed their investment in a period of time with an equivalent progress created by the developers before ICO. It will be a win win move for both.
I do believe the undoing of ico was not just about marketing or bad developers
The main failure started after the difficulties in pleasing investors and the best payment mode for hunters
During ico; projects takes ages to list on an exchange which gives investor an impression of dumping upon listing and that just kills the project
The main failure started after the difficulties in pleasing investors and the best payment mode for hunters
During ico; projects takes ages to list on an exchange which gives investor an impression of dumping upon listing and that just kills the project
It's difficult to say who is right and who is wrong. Usually there are two sides involved. There must have been somethng wrong with projects as well.
Have they ever brainwashed you before, if they have, you would have understood that the investors acted the way they did because of the impression that the developers gave them. Developers failed from the moment they started giving huge bonuses for pre ICO participants, which means you are indirectly laying emphasis more on the profit they can get on the investment and not the core value of the said project which should have been the one that would make ICO industry successful.
They have real case products, but they are not talking much about it. Developers cannot just invite few people at the early stage and expect that those groups are enough to make the project continue, for a project to continue surviving, it needs more people, and that is the work of the developer to promote it.
They have real case products, but they are not talking much about it. Developers cannot just invite few people at the early stage and expect that those groups are enough to make the project continue, for a project to continue surviving, it needs more people, and that is the work of the developer to promote it.
The failure of ICO is not the investors making. I mean, an investor is more like a nominal partner if to be considered as so. Such partner is not the real active collaborators but directed but at the ICO case too, investors buy their quota expecting to make money from the investment, the developers are to be blame from my point.
Which is why the pointed out greed blinded the ICO investors all for the profit not safe guarding whether these ICOs area scam or not and so it fires back to all including the teams these days who hit rock bottom. Its harder for the future to trust crypto because they all have seen what it did last year, people are prepared to dump the coins they have seeing they gained 50%. Wouldn't even bother seeing it goes more than 50%.
I always wondered why I never saw pledge like bounties on projects, which would have ensured that a product was actually being developed even if was for the testnet. As investors you set the rules, your the one that the project needs not vice versa. Investors failed to established a norm that would have prevented all this chaos and still are. ICO's are not the problem investors are. I was just looking at how Namecoin used https://www.bountysource.com/ to offer a risk-free way of investors to be able to donate while being ensured that a product is actually built. We have failed to utilized the tools that have been right in front of us. Being blinded by greed.
before we discuss further about this, I want to analyze a system in the ICO, first, the project established by the developer, then the developer does the ICO launching to find investors, after getting their investors to build the project concept that was provided before ICO (white paper), the concept can produce products or services that use cryptocurrency, using funds from investors, developers make coins or find markets for development, so from this analysis if a project fails, not in the investor but in the hands of the developer.
how is the analysis, the project failed due to investors in ICO?
Why blame investors if they made their contribution to the development of the project by investing their money there. And developers should be responsible for various risks and proper project management. Everyone bears responsibility for their obligations.
I always wondered why I never saw pledge like bounties on projects, which would have ensured that a product was actually being developed even if was for the testnet. As investors you set the rules, your the one that the project needs not vice versa. Investors failed to established a norm that would have prevented all this chaos and still are. ICO's are not the problem investors are. I was just looking at how Namecoin used https://www.bountysource.com/ to offer a risk-free way of investors to be able to donate while being ensured that a product is actually built. We have failed to utilized the tools that have been right in front of us. Being blinded by greed.
Wonder how the BountySource.com works. How long has it been in existence by the way? You sure it supports crypto because it looks like everything is funded with USD. My only concern with site like that is that rules can change anytime and Crypto-related projects will likely suffer the most from such change.
In my opinion, a proper crowdfunding platform for true cryptocurrency should have strongly coded Blockchain-friendly standards that must be met automatically... It must be permissionless, decentralized, censorship-resistant, etc
Jump to: