Topic: Red flags for me not to invest into ICO (Read 1581 times)

It is a good idea to know when tokens will be given to team members because sometimes you can see that a lot of tokens being sold at one moment. That might happen if somebody from the team dump a lot of tokens to the market and drops the price down. All the investors get very upset at that moment because the team knows news way earlier than us. Having tokens being distributed to the team in several months after the ICO is a good thing too.

I agree with this they only what to collect on ICO funds are taken token is given but after that they are gone scamming people

You explained it very well above and this can be used as a ICO pre-investment guide. For me, if the team is anonymus, I never invest money in there. They should come up with real linkedin accounts, so that I can trust them. And white paper is another factor to select the right ICO for me.

Nice article!!
This week I saw the ICO of Cindicator.
They have a white list and a couple differents for the ICO. Very professional.
There are a lot of differents in every ICO. Some are realy bad.

Very good list, i think people get too excited about the technology and the amount of capital getting thrown around that it is easy to forget that investing into ICO's are like any other investment. You need to do your work.

For me there are a few signs to look for in a ICO

- Strong team - Both in development team and also the CEO's / marketing (no point having a great team to create something, if nobody can advertsie it and push the startup in the right direction.
- Realistic vision - not aiming too high or if they do not reach their target everyone who invested will be disappointed
- Solid whitepaper - Well thought out, shows realistic goals, a strong good vision and a plan of action
- Strong social media presence - A social media that shows they are connected with everyone
- Good customer support - Shows they care, and they have invested time and money into making sure the average investor can ask questions
- Good website - A business who is willing to throw time and effort into a good website are less likely to be a scam
- finite supply - ICO's with no cap can be dangerous and can simply just damage their own coin by releasing more for more investment.
-Market they are getting involved with - Is this a new market? or a dying one? who controls the market?

Finally
- Good concept and catchy name - A good ethos and a name that makes them stand out. Personally i would avoid anything that is something "coin".

If these are in place, then it's a good sign. I am looking at Crowdholding at the minute, seems like a good upcoming ICO (They are in their pre-sale). I like this one because it is about co-creation (Which i am interested in) and also you can get more for your investment as they are in their pre-sale.

https://ico.crowdholding.com/

Thanks a lot for this topic. As someone who is very busy developing my own token (surprise surprise), I found your comments to be quite helpfull. Some things cannot be mitigated, like the general lack of experience in programmers with the specific skills set that I need for my platform. Nonetheless, it is very interesting and educational to read different experiences of ICO investors. Thanks for sharing!

Make sense but what about some projects that are software projects having the solution based on Blockchain. In this scenarios not creating a blockchain however using an existing one and its functionality.

Thanks for the topic, I want to add some points that important for me:
1. It's a clear blockchain project - not investment in real business. I want to see  transparency in the future transactions.
2. Clear consensus algorithm and economic stimuatuions for every member of this system, Who will support nodes, add value to the system, promote it and so on? Unfortunately, many new ICO projects try to use blockchain as a magic wand without explanaition how this system will be work and what beneffits members get.
3. Token - How I can use a token or what I can buy with the aid of this token and can't buy for the money.
4. Open code - I want to see that guys have code on Github and want to check how many commits they have made. Is it alive project? Also, how many developers has their team - it's imposible to create good blockchain project without good techical background.
5. Advicers- have they take a part in this project development?
6. Community - is it active? People really like the product or they only want to get their bounty?

Real life users would really be the main thing for me and an active developer or owner would comes next on which it actively updates regarding on the project and updates the investor of it which i can see that this is the main thing i do seek when i tend to put up money.If these things are absent then i would really pass up on this and going back on seeking on another project.

Agree. I value the active developer updating always the community or investor. Also I do check the people behind the project and the industry they belong. Also the projects application in real life solution is a must, I mean its uses to community.

This thread is a really helpful for a lot of people. Thank you so much for starting a thread like this with new alt coins showing up everyday it's hard to tell which coins are worth your money or which coins are just there to steal your money. I've just been in page 1 and I actually learned a lot I've read some red flags that I have never thought about before.

Checking the company's code and their engagement on Github is a good idea too.

1) Does it solve a REAL problem/need
2) Is a token/blockchain, as applied, the best or at least novel solution to #1
3) Is this a new approach not already being serviced by another (well developed) coin or token
4) Is the team communicative and do they appear/have credentials that they can deliver #1
4a) IF the team is anonymous there MUST be a clear reason to do so (anonymity driven coins, etc...)
4b) Do team members have other project commitments past/current/future in crypto (use as a measuring stick)
5) Is the sale being conducted transparently, ideally with escrow if applicable (not through a smart contract)

If it passes 1-5 THEN it's worth EVALUATING deeply as a posdible investment.  Many, if not most, ICOs I fear will become vaporware and crash, likely devaluating the crypto-sphere as a whole over time due to so many people wanting to get rich quick.

Caveat Emptor

Next thing is current results that project has. This part is not hard to identify. The best thing you can have going to ICO is MVP (minimum viable product). I do not personally like alphas, betas, etc. The product should be on the market and should have 1-2 clients or cases when it was used. The other thing that is important is there any significant companies that project has partnered with. It is hard to understand if some unknown company (ICO project) is a partner of another unknown company from their area. But look at example of Enterprise Etherium Alliance. Things like that shows that even when project/company will go through the toughest periods of their growth they will not sink. They will do it.
Red flags for me in this section are:
Project has no results at all: no MVP, no visits of the conferences, no partners, etc.
Project team has nothing to show. Even no prototypes of what they will do.
Team members have nothing that can help new projects survive in competitive market. A good example is DMarket that already has skins.cash. Having such non-blockchain project as skins.cash will for sure help promote new blockchain project because it is the same audience.
Project has some unknown partners (that sometimes do not even have a website).
Team members did not participate in the [Suspicious link removed]munity events or did not mention anything about their project.

Token Role is the next one. What role does the token have in the end product? It is hard to identify the best role for a token within the system right now. It is a good idea to if you can exchange token for a service or a product within the project ecosystem. That will allow for the token demand to rise while project evolves. The red flags for me are:
Token is close to security according to Howey test. Remember about SEC. Some may say why not. It is your choice.
Token is not an utility and you can not redeem it within the project ecosystem.
There is no product that company proposes to exchange for the token and the product/service is for a very small group of users.
The future of the token is unclear after ICO. Sometimes it is unclear why some teams add blockchain somewhere where it is not necessary at this moment. Just do it a bit later. Cmon.

Yes. We know that. It is good we have different opinions in this topic.

At present, most of the projects have great potential, so after the ICO ended, people got big profits. That is also why many people focus on the ICO, and it is booming.

Another one is: Never invest more than you can afford loosing.

You are right. There are a lot of outsiders` startups that are trying to catch the hype or just attach blockchain cause they think ICO requires it. I see right now there is a big gap between what is presented on the ICO websites and what can be behind that team/project/company and is there anything at all. Usually having an MVP or examples of cases help me understand what the team is about and does it worth a while.

This is a double-edge sword. There are lot of projects out there that purports to disrupt such and such industry by introducing a product based on blockchain technology, but many times it's not clear how blockchain can actually help to solve the problem at hand OR help to solve it more efficiently than competing approaches. It seems to me that a lot of projects use blockchain either for marketing purposes or for the opportunity for staging an ICO or simply for a sake of using blockchain.

Also if you find a project interesting, always read its whitepaper (that is if you can find one). Many times it's very hard for the outsider to guesstimate project's worth, but other times there are such glaring and obvious gaps in proposed business plan, that you can safely assume, that project won't be successful (apart from random pumps and dumps)