Topic: Numerousity of ICOs and Coins: A Blessing or Curse? - page 2. (Read 629 times)

While the ICO activities are not as effective as we would like. Most of them are only trying to earn money and do not care about the tokens created and the further implementation of the announced projects. However, a certain part of them is quite successful, and the created coins find their application and bring people benefits and convenience. While we must accept this state of affairs, we must carefully make our investments, and in the future the market will show which coin deserves to continue to exist and which does not. In general, ICO projects are a boon, as some of them bring tangible benefits.

no blessing and no curse! we can see ICO like start ups and they can succeed or fail!

one difference, start up raises money from banks or investment funds but ICO raises money from people!

Its a curse. Its like these developers can't wait for an ICO to be done that they kept introducing more projects everyday and yet though they'd be funded. Teams should check first whether people will try to send ETH/BTC to them when at the time they created and ANN thread there were also better ICO than them.

Regarding my opinion on this I'm leaning towards a curse. The tons of coins and ICO's nowadays result in an oversaturated market at best and a minefield of scams at worst. Several days ago I've read parts of an old thread here on BCT about some ICO. The dev managed to raise a significant sum of money, and subsequently announced he was scamming everyone and posted pics of him enjoying an expensive vacation/holiday made possible by the raised funds.

Personally, I'm not gonna touch ICO's even with a broomstick!

It is a free world and a free market. And in that circumstance competition should not be seen to be evil. If you think competition is expensive try out monopoly and see for yourself.

There are too many ICOs no doubt. But I think natural selection will come to play and only the strongest will survive. I can already see a future where our individual selves will be tokenized, and the value of each one will base on ones productivity and relivance in the economy. Whatch out!

I'm not going to propose an from the frame of reference of a value investor, but from a different perspective. (Prepare for hyperbole within my narrative.)

Every week, there's ten new ICOs, all clamoring for your funds. Assuming they're all legitimate, and not massive scams, nine out of ten of them all do the exact same thing as Bitcoin. They provide a means of exchange through the medium of a digital currency. I will admit, some of them do provide improvements, those being the tokens built on Ethereum, or perhaps Byteball, as they allow for all sorts of contractual mechanisms and the like.

The problem is the deluge of all these coins diminishes the usefulness of every other coin that achieves the same goal.

Imagine someone designs a coin for people to buy porn website subscriptions, SpankCoin. For the sake of example, SpankCoin has just launched an ICO. Some people invest, as you do. "A coin related to jerking off? Awesome!". The next week, comes the unveiling of WankCoin - it does everything SpankCoin does, but worded differently. However, since people are in the stage of throwing money at everything, WankCoin also makes a ton of money from investors. Now, there's two coins vying for success in the porno coin market. But then, in the same or following weeks, come new coins - SplurtToken, CockCoins, DickBits, and the people with FOMO who missed out on one ICO will buy the next. And now there's five coins vying for the porno market.

Can you tell me how many merchants are going to accept five, let alone one, speculative investment coin? When you have five coins all doing exactly the same thing, how do you pick which to work with? How do consumers know which to buy? And so what happens, is nobody buys any of these tokens off the investors, and the investors lose all their money. Nobody knows what to buy, and merchants don't have anything to accept without risking losing all their money in massive volatility. And this is happening for every market and every niche - look at all the weed coins, and the piss coins, and the game coins. All this diversification is bad for crypto.

And at the end of the day, Bitcoin does all of these things, already. Monero does all of these things already, and isn't 6k a piece. Why would anyone use a niche coin you can only use to buy porno, over something that you can spend on porn, or sandwiches? All these ICOs for coins that are already being done better is hurting the value of every single coin, in the long term.

bleesing. we dont have to worry about too many ico. cause the best ico will the one that will survive. and i belive thats make the market stable. the more coin and ico means many company trying to use this technology for their business. and many to come i belive. so dont be afraid of ico. its not threat

I think it's a complex scenario where all the possible outcome are valid.more ico means the money coming into  crypto is spread thin over a large number of coins.but then the awareness created by these icos is bringing 'young' money running into billions into the ecosystem.checking the market capitalizat pre and post ico era gives u an idea of how much money has enter the ecosystem due to the emergence of ico.so I that it's both a blessing a curse. It just depends from which point u view the pendulum

But also more and more people knowing about bitcoin and altcoins. So money just pour in cryptocurrency world. And actually nobody can't control it
So the Genie was let out of the bottle!

Just thinking... the exponential growth in  ICOs recently is a trend that could have diminshing effects on the value of tokenized investments. I so think based on the following assumptions: 1. Investment fund is scarce resource 2. Every potential investor is rational with resources 3. More ICOs = more investment alternatives for would be investors in the market, which also implies increased substitution for existing coins. Based on the assumptions above, the likely scenerio in a multiplicty of ICOs would be that fewer investor funds would chase more supply of  ICO products in the market and naturally push down the demand for already existing coins. And of course, lower demand translates to lower token prices.

What do you think, guys?