Topic: Is MVP required for your investment (Read 370 times)
Of course, a project with MVP is more reliable than a project with nothing, MVP is an important criterion, but certainly no one is blind to invest in a project with just one criterion. . Criteria such as team, concept, partner, etc. are also important
For me, even an mvp is not enough, there needs to be a beta product that I can actually test and use.
From what I've seen, an MVP is basically meaningless.
I have seen companies call a website an MVP or a couple of entries on github and mvp.
In all cases, there was nothing that could actually be seen or tested.
That is basically the same as not having a product at all, and I will never invest in something unless it can get to market.
For the tech footprint, I have relied on my network to help me out.
Since I don't have much tech knowledge, I pass on the info to my techie friends and they have a go at it.
I trust their judgement and it is very easy for them to spot something that has terrible tech.
In return, they come to me with help with contact in Asia and especially the chinese market.
From what I've seen, an MVP is basically meaningless.
I have seen companies call a website an MVP or a couple of entries on github and mvp.
In all cases, there was nothing that could actually be seen or tested.
That is basically the same as not having a product at all, and I will never invest in something unless it can get to market.
For the tech footprint, I have relied on my network to help me out.
Since I don't have much tech knowledge, I pass on the info to my techie friends and they have a go at it.
I trust their judgement and it is very easy for them to spot something that has terrible tech.
In return, they come to me with help with contact in Asia and especially the chinese market.
it's true, MVP is not enough to be used as a benchmark to provide a sound decision in investing, but if the MVP is supported by several facts that allow the project to be related to the potential to become big, what is wrong with investing?
I think an ico with a project that already has MVP will have added value, especially the issue of trust as one of the many requirements in consideration of investment. MVP is one proof that developers are working on something related to their project, even though it still has bugs and shortcomings. With these bugs, we can interact with the developers of the team, and we can see and assess the extent of their response and how it develops after that.
Checking the repository code is one of the considerations before investing while the rating should be an option. But remember, MVP is not a guarantee that a project will be successful and can also turn into a scam.
Always be smart and do deep research before investing.
Checking the repository code is one of the considerations before investing while the rating should be an option. But remember, MVP is not a guarantee that a project will be successful and can also turn into a scam.
Always be smart and do deep research before investing.
I would say its needed for an ICO to be trusted, they should show an MVP before they proceed to the next implementation that they want to do.
That's right, everyone should not invest blindly because its about your money.
That's right, everyone should not invest blindly because its about your money.
Not much care for that because most of the project right now has still no mvp due to their lack of funds. That is why they intended to launch a tokensale to fund their project. But for those projects that already has an mvp, it will be a good advantage to them. Since they already have a working product, and they can attract more potential investors.
MVP ready during ICO is good sign for that project, and it is a proof that the developer make their job. In my personal review about ICO, I make it one of the highest signal for the best ICO.
Do you trust more and ICO if they present a Minimum Product even if it has bugs? Do you look a the code repository before investing or you just look at ratings? You should not invest blindly!
Well it has no product than I wouldn't care about it too much, it doesn't have to have the product ready but at least some sort of proof that they can do what they are promising. I mean at least give us something to look at to know what type of thing you are doing. Would you invest into a house that is not built without even seeing a picture of what it will be like? I mean when buying a house is it too much to ask for a picture of what it will be like? I am not even talking about a model, just a picture. Same thing here, if you want us to trust you and give you our money than even if the house is not there at least give us the picture of what we will have when its all funded. MVP is obviously a plus point but a bare minimum would be more than enough to know if I want to invest in it or not.
If the project has an MVP, this means that you can begin to explore the project in more detail. The MVP is only one of the criteria for ICO selection.
Do you trust more and ICO if they present a Minimum Product even if it has bugs? Do you look a the code repository before investing or you just look at ratings? You should not invest blindly!
If a project does not have a product, it is just a simple research. Imagine, even a thesis has product. ICO's that has MVP are those who succeed more. That is the real fact in crypto industry. If you want a 70% assurance to your investment, you need to look for MVP than whitepaper. Ratings are just an added tools for the beauties of the project, it can be bought by developers. Do you trust more and ICO if they present a Minimum Product even if it has bugs? Do you look a the code repository before investing or you just look at ratings? You should not invest blindly!
It's still MVP and that i suppose that is fine if that also includes a bug and it will be solved presently. i will be able to try and inspect the however active the deveopers through use the code repository as a basic illustration. Remember it is a dangerous issue to publish all of the codes contemplate there was a alot of chance that being taken to make another clone.
MVP is a big + if you are going to invest into a project. do you like investing into a project that only has Whitepaper to present its costumer / investor? there is no guarantee that your investment is going to be worth it
We should not trust any rating sites because they may work for money. If we really need investment, then we should rely on increasing knowledge and communicating with other traders to draw conclusions!
I still support it though it has seen many bugs because it will surely be fixed. Compared to those projects that is boasting that they have a good project with great features, but still don't have any Mvp, surely I don't invest in just saying that its good, its better to see it.
I don't think all that much of projects that release buggy MVP's just so they have something to show potential investors. I do check Github repositories to see what sort of work they have been doing on the project. It is my experience that projects that start building before asking for money are the ones that actually continue building after they get money.
It is definitely better, if they already have the MVP before conducting ICO, but I have seen many projects having MVP and not reaching the softcap or their token crashed. I think it really comes down to the team. If the team is experienced, then they have a good chance in succeeding.
Do you trust more and ICO if they present a Minimum Product even if it has bugs? Do you look a the code repository before investing or you just look at ratings? You should not invest blindly!
I would preferred to have at least an MVP and much better if they have already a working product. The likes of MyCryptoBank, EOSex and Muusic.FM they have one thing in common they have a working product. If you gonna invest in some ICO's better choose the one who with real working product and developers with experienced in that industry.
A minimum viable product (MVP) allows developers to demonstrate that their products have the minimum technical characteristics of functionality. It is what makes investors invest today.
I think the community should demand that projects now have an MVP. If we want to avoid Scam ICOs although it is not a guarantee at least we advance to the good development of our crypto world.
I think the community should demand that projects now have an MVP. If we want to avoid Scam ICOs although it is not a guarantee at least we advance to the good development of our crypto world.
I always look for a working product before investing in it. But of course, it must have good and genuine ratings from legitimate experts.
I prefer ico who has a product, because if the product is in demand then the value of the coin from ico will go up but that also guarantees nothing because there are some who do not succeed in not even realizing the concept, the point is that the concept does not guarantee, we also assess the team behind ico and in my opinion the rank also needs to see but don't fully believe, I mean we still have to use our personal judgment about the ico
Jump to: