Topic: Is MVP required for your investment - page 2. (Read 332 times)

Having an MVP is a good thing but it really doesn't guarantee project success but I think it will help collecting millions for the ICO funds. Seen some ICO succeed because of it. I have no idea how easy it is though about MVP's being in the google play, if its easy to get a product up on googleplay then this can be used by ICO scammers.

MVP is very important in every project.
It will gain more trust from the people and their possible investors.
Though, that is not the only reason to have the project. we should look more in different corner of an ICO.

MVP is an important factor when choosing a project to invest in or participate in a campaign bounty, as this proves the seriousness of the project and its well-planned work. But in any case, we always need to carefully review and study projects, as fraudsters can fake even the product MVP.

Yes, I do trust more ICOs with a live MVP although I prefer if its not buggy. ICOs should make it a standard to have a live MVP before starting a token sale.

I am not that technical so I do not do it personally. I ask some friends who knows how.

Ratings are good but I do not rely on them.

I always look into an MVP of a project even if it is not fully working or involves bugs. The MVP shows that a team invested a significant amount of time in product design and thinking about features and functionality. I personally assume that a project with an MVP is less likely to be a scam.

It is a must for every project to have at least an MVP, because without any sign of a working product, you are just investing in an idea and as far as I know, only a small percentage of projects are successful if they only have a whitepaper.

Now I don't invest in projects at the stage of ICO, because it is much more profitable to buy on the exchange in the current market. I don't buy assets for the purpose of short-term speculation, but for long-term holding and always look to the project followed the plan set out in the road map. I believe that to go to ICO without any "draft" of the future product, so you could show anything to investors-is very frivolous.

Of course, I think if ICO has mvp, they will seriously work later. As for me, I don't invest in project without softcap and mvp. I think it's basic rules for every investor. You should follow them.

If I meet a good project of MVP. I will invest. Because this means that the project is being developed. The code will be updated. Although it will have BUG. But this represents an attitude towards projects. So if there are no problems in every aspect of the project, I will consider investment.

developers should work on their product before releasing the product beta because if it will have bugs then investors may not believe in the project with the product which have bugs in it offcourse these bugs can be solved later but it will raise questions on the devs

It's still MVP and i think that's fine if that still has a bug and it can be solved soon. i will try to look at the how active the deveopers through use the code repository as a basic representation.
Remember it's a bad thing to publish all of the codes consider there was a alot of possibility that being stolen to create another clone.

The projects has MVP are certainly good projects and will be of interest to many investors. If the MVP is faulty, it's like you said it will soon be improved and repaired, they are just in the beginning process so it takes a lot of development time so that the product can be used smoothly

I think it is very obvious. If you don't have an MVP, then that simply means you haven't tried and tested your ideas. It also means you aren't committed enough. If you were, you would take some loan or use your savings and see if idea is even feasible on small scale first. You just have a theory and on the basis of that you shouldn't/can't raise money. At least that's how it works in traditional fundraising. This MVPless funding worked last year but investors are very cautious now. You don't have an MVP, you don't get funds.

Investing in ICO is like gambling, you must be smart to read assess and decide, see the details of their project being the main point in investing, see through their entire whiteaper.

I agree with the creator of the topic, now there are really a lot of fraudulent projects and it is very difficult to choose a good one. I have been investing in various projects for about a year and a half and I have formed requirements for them.
1. At preICO, the team must have a contract for automatic transfer of funds with prescribed conditions for early investors - not handles as many do, namely written in a smart contract - otherwise the funds raised may simply enrich the founders or conditions will change during the play - lots of cases.
2. A contract for preICO should be part of a large contract for ICO - not with different coins - it is not safe in terms of vulnerabilities and defrauding.
3. The contract for preICO and then ICO must have a lower and upper barrier - if the team does not have it, it does not know what it wants, just scam.
4. The contract for ICO must have escrow funds received as a result of the placement - this can be a frieze or multisig with the condition of voting. This will give you a guarantee against using up funds earlier than the team completed the previous stage.
5. The contract must be spelled out an unconditional refund in case of not reaching the lower limit of the pool. It is in the contract and not in the white paper if this is not the case - a scam.
6. All contracts must be posted on GithHub. This will allow third-party developers to check the contract for vulnerabilities if the team did not take care and before the ICO did not put a bounty on the vulnerabilities.
7. The contract must contain the conditions for the team and for the bounty.
8. The contract must specify the conditions for not sold tokens - with clearly defined terms.
9. The project must have partnership agreements with large corporations or foundations.
10. On the official website of the project should be specified contact information to team members. It is desirable accounts in social networks.
11. Someone of their team members should actively communicate in the official telegram channel of the project
Here are a few of my requirements. If you have something to add, then I will be very happy!

MVP is as a test-product to show their idea. And I think if there are a little bugs, it will be not a big problem. As I see, almost ICO reviewers and investors ask for MVP. I'm not an investor but I still appreciate the project has MVP.

MVP is important, cause that is part of the evidence of the project.. In my opinion, MVP aims to simulate how use and how project work for the future development (although many bugs in there).. In addition, MVP can also provide confidence in the investor candidate..

So, if you're investor, what will you choose if you have a money. Give to someone who has a store but does not have any goods for sell or someone who has a skill but do not have the enthusiast.

Careful of entrusting your money to a project you invest..

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!