Topic: Never invest no product ICOs - page 30. (Read 6803 times)
Yes, investing in an ICO without a product is a risk. Especially now, when a lot of scam projects. I advise you to be careful.
The risk of investing in ICO is indeed great, but it cannot be said that all ICOs are scams. ICOs also have quality projects, but we need to pick them.
Yeah i think because ICOs with out product hmm i think its hard to get in hardcap in there pre sales and privates?? Because they sont the product to encourage all investor to invest there ICOs!!
If I think under any Ico concept it is understood that something is not yet developed. Even if the company has a product they still need money to develop it or add new features. It's easy to lose sight and lose money, the project can look very good and successful, but when the project goes into the world it can easily burn and it will be very difficult to back up again.
I agree with you. If the project does not have at least an alpha or beta version of the product, this means that the project is not competitive, and it is difficult to predict how it will behave itself, even after the product is released. One thing is for sure it will have a bad effect on the price of the token.
If you work as venchure investor you need to understand that 90% of all project can SCAM,
but other 10% will give so big profit that they can cover the loss.
but other 10% will give so big profit that they can cover the loss.
It's not no longer happening at the moment investors are getting wiser everyday, it's only newbie in crypto currency will invest in an ICO that has no product and all their ideas are on the white paper, any ICO doing that at the moment won't likely reach their soft or hard cap.
Yes, now very often companies that do not have a product do not reach the soft cap. And I trust the company that already has a product.
I agree with you, but with all this, you just pointed out a unique slag project. KickCity came to the exchange 40 times cheaper than THE KCY token should have cost after the end of the ICO. A good example of a project that had a working product developed at the time of the ICO is Bubbelton. His token is not yet on the stock exchange, but I think that the price of the token of this project will hardly fall, and even if it falls, then not by 40 times.
Yes, unfortunately, the token price is currently declining after entering the stock exchange. This happens in most cases. I'll follow up on the project you mentioned.
I also think so. I will choose and trust the ICO project that already has the previous product. It will be more clear where the direction, process, progress and real what will be developed.
I agree with you, but with all this, you just pointed out a unique slag project. KickCity came to the exchange 40 times cheaper than THE KCY token should have cost after the end of the ICO. A good example of a project that had a working product developed at the time of the ICO is Bubbelton. His token is not yet on the stock exchange, but I think that the price of the token of this project will hardly fall, and even if it falls, then not by 40 times.
In a company without a product, you can invest, but it's very risky. But I agree, if the company has a product, then such a company investors trust more.
I think that not all ICOs are so bad and in some of them you can invest money, but you need to carefully select a project and everything to check out, his team and other aspects.
this is a wonderful overview and its actually what I keep telling my friends, working product is one of the criteria i always look for whenever i want to invest in an ICO. no working product no investing for me.
I also try to invest in a product in which there is at least a beta version, but already working. It's easy to get into the moshenok and there's nothing left to do. See the ratings they help choose the best ico. and reduce their risks to a minimum.
Now projects without finished products very often can not compete with large projects with finished products. And everything is relative because not all projects are able to release finished products before ICO. These projects suffered from scammers, which have reduced the market confidence in ICO
I also skip ICOs without product or at least MVP. In venture market investing in idea withour product is extremely risky and only a few projects on seed stage grow in to something big , so my approach is quite clear, I don't want to accept high risk
All people say that ideas it's more important than the product but ICO and 2017 year showed us that it's not true.
yeah, thats what planning in the future works to be success, and importance of an ico is to have their own product introduce to the community. because the product itself gave ideas to the team for what the next steps to become a promising project in the coming days.
I also think that supporting projects that have nothing wrong, there are a lot of good projects that already have a lot of good and already available software for testing. In it and need to invest. This is just my opinion.
Jump to: