Topic: To Project Developers - Get Rid Of Greed & Make Investing In Start-ups Worth It. (Read 184 times)

This is the ugly reality of new projects in Cryptocurrency you are expecting something great in projects you invest in only to find out that the projects did not meet your expectation, they say a project needs usage and platform to move forward, but it's not the case I have seen projects with products and usage but developers cannot keep up with developers, most of these new projects are just clone of existing projects or projects that are not realistic, it's really a gamble to invest on a new startup so it's better to not pour everything and learn to exit when developers are not or late in updating in the development

Most dev teams don't have staff with a strong valuation background. Additionally, some teams want to raise all the money at once. Traditionally, you raise angel funding and then do a series of rounds where the valuation becomes clearer. Doing it all at once obscures the value.

See our project here, where we try to do things differently: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/peer-to-peer-advertising-and-social-network-powered-by-bitcoin-stacks-5344556

Well, I've played at both sides of the table. As an investor, it's painful to lose money. It's something that drains your spirit as well as your wallet. You feel cheated.

As a developer, the truth is the more money you raise the better people and systems you can afford. It takes a couple of companies for entrepreneurs to figure out that raising less and keeping more of their companies can yield better results in the long run. Few understand this.

I suggest you avoid ICOs and focus on trading the markets. There are a lot of good opportunities out there. 

Yes, I agree with you that marketing takes a lot money, but I still think that for a project to spend a lot of money on marketing, depends on -
1. Their marketing strategy - some project managers spend money on marketing strategies that are outdated and brings little to no result, and if this kind of project fails, investors are the ones who suffer the most for it.

2. What product they are offering to the public - some products require alot of marketing(which also means alot of money) to get noticed while some don't, and what differentiates one from the other is uniqueness, projects that are unique in their aspect dont require spending so much on marketing.


This is due to the performance of bitcoin and some other major crypto coins, due to the sharp rise of bitcoin and how it made many of its investors instantly rich, alot of new investors come in with the wrong mindset, they come in with this believe in their head that investing in crypto is a ticket to instantly becoming rich, and if after waiting and watching their investments, instead of it going up, it's rather going down, they panic, disappointment set in and they sell and look for some other coin to put their money and repeat the same thing again and again, this is one of the factors affecting our growth today.

Thanks for sharing, i registered an account, I will try to buy a sit and see how it works.

It’s not always easy to provide a great return, especially when compared to the success of BTC. I’ve been helping investors in NastyFans receive weekly payouts for nearly a decade and have recently set a buyback price in BTC to act as a price floor and minimize any potential losses. Still, with this outstanding record and effort the project remains largely unknown. I hope that helps explain why massive budgets spent on marketing to pump and dump while people get to play with volatility remains the market’s preferred method. Nobody in this space really wants long term reliable gains even if it massively outpaces traditional investments. You can read more about NastyFans here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nastyfans-the-bitcoin-enthusiast-fan-club-est-2012-86854 or buy “seats” to get weekly BTC distributions at https://nastyfans.org

ICOs, IEOs, and other distribution campaigns achieve failure because they require a large amount of supply at once and prevent sales for long periods, so it is easy to know that the price will drop sharply after the launch of the project, and the project rarely achieves its goal of reaching that price and most likely will collapse during the initial years of the project.
In fact, 99% of digital currencies do not hold for two years, and even those that do, they struggle to survive with high volatility, but in the future they will fail.

The problem with this one is that start ups takes a lot of funding so you can't really blame the project developers if they ask for an exorbitant amount of funding. Plus this isn't really the best place to ask for funding for projects, people here are too cynical and cheap to fund you especially if you aren't a high ranking member.

If we compare all these projects with bitcoin then we can find the answer.

Satoshi didn't price his bitcoin when he launched, he let the actual supply and demand decides it that is how the actual startup should be instead of creating certain amount as supply and give a price tag to it.

Everyone wants to get profits there is no doubt about that but as long as someone funds the projects initially then they are going to dump it no matter how good the coin is so staying away from such projects make sense.

I don't think the reason is as simple as that. Sure, bad token valuation is one of them, but there are other factors that contribute to that quick dump phenomenon, including but not limited to:
1. Most early investors want to get a quick profit, hence they dump as early as they could to protect their investment.
2. There is no lock-up etc because most investors won't like it, since the developer wants money, they agree with it and allow 1 to happen.
3. If you're running an IEO, most exchanges request some tokens as compensation, and this also causes the dump if there's not enough hype to sustain it at the launch. Etc.

If you believe the token is overpriced, then how to determine the right price? I think there's not enough framework to guess that. Developers won't like it if they don't get enough funding for their development, especially if they're backed by some VC or private investors who request a lot of things.

YES..Get rid of greed and make investing in startups worth the stress, hassles and risk we take.

Have you ever wondered why most new project launch their fundraising campaigns inform of an ICO or IEO or whatever they choose to call it, which most times in the end is successfully done, but as soon as the coin or token gets listed on an exchange, the price of the coin or token go straight below the price it was sold during the fund raising campaign?

Have you really ever wondered why this happens? Yes, I will tell you, it's because the coin or token was Overpriced during the fundraising campaign.
And why was the coin or token overpriced? It's because the project developers are Greedy, they want to raise as much money as they want, rather than as much needed (at least) to build the project to a stage where it begins to fund itself.

This bad behavior of project developers have discouraged a lot of individuals from investing in Start-ups, Start-ups were supposed to be like a goldmine, Scarce, it was supposed to be a big bounty, a big bonus, it was supposed to be precious, highly valued, a gem, Start-ups were supposed to be on every investors watch list, every serious investor were supposed to be on the look out for Start-ups to invest in, cus that's where the money should be, as when a person  manages to participate in one, that person is guaranteed to double or triple he's invested amount x10 or higher (if the project is not a scam).
But today, the opposite is the case, most Start-ups today are avenue for investors to either choose to loose their money or choose to tie it down for a long time in hopes of the start-up they invested in turning out profitable in the future which sometimes take years.

Am of the opinion that, even if a start-up investor choose to leave his or her money in the project he or she invested in, that should be he's or her decision, it should never be because he or she is in loss, e.g,if he or she gets out now, he or she will loose a great percentage of the amount he or she initially invested, and to avoid this loss, he or she is forced to hodl.
A start-up investor should never be in loss, WHY? , Because he or she is a start-up investor, he or she took the risk of trusting the project developers whom he or she does not know, and paid his or her time and money to become one of the first investors, he or she should be the highest profit earner from this project, but unfortunately today, the reverse is that case, those who join late in the project end up buying the coin or token far cheaper than what the first investors paid for it, and also get out earlier in profit while the first investors are still waiting for their own investment to turn out profitable.

My experience - if I have invested in 50 different crypto Start-ups since I started crypto, 48 out of those 50 projects instantly went below ICO or IEO price as soon as they got listed on an exchange, I don't know what your experience is but this is reality, and it's not healthy for the growth of crypto currencies.

If this continues to be this way, a time will come when Start-ups will no longer find anyone to invest in their project except its listed on exchange.

Why would a project developer start a project which has 10 billion coins in total supply, and they plan to put out 5 billion in circulation the first year, in this first year, they don't have a working product, no utility for the coin, no usecase, just website and whitepaper and maybe a mobile app that it's only immediate function at that time is to check coin price and the amount of coin you hold, then they still go ahead and sell those 5 billion coins at the rate of 0.02 usd each raising tens of millions or dollars - for what exactly?
And the unfortunate part is that as soon as the coin gets listed on an exchange, late comers to that project still end up buying the same coin for 0.005 usd and even below, this is outrageous and highly disappointing  

I know they dont force anyone to invest in their ICO but com'on, what's worth doing should be done well.

Let's discuss. Feel free to share your experiences or add to the discussion.