Topic: What an ICO should focus on? Services or Investment? (Read 354 times)
Services are paramount. All the investment in the world doesn't mean a lot if you don't have anything produced from it. The projects that are surviving now are ones that focused on delivery.
In my opinion I think both the service and investment should be put in place, majority of the ico out there failed because they have no solid product that they are offering to investors, they are just there to get Eth and list below ico price on an exchange
before carrying out the ico project developers already hold 50% of the funds they sell and have fixed investors, in order to enter large exchanges it requires a lot of funds to be able to survive in the market, a strong project behind them is a team that works hard to build their company.
it is compliment, if the project focus on how it can help the community and it is very good in their vision the investors will come to them and be able to be successful one because of the project itself and because of the investors. But sometimes investors dont look to the project they only look on when they can be able to earn in an easiest way.
Well, definitely both are required. It is important to assess the expansion potential that the project has. If it is aiming to solve an issue in a local way or for a small audience, chances are it will not grow a lot. If the project has a roadmap that extends for years and the project aims to solve an issue that affects at a global scale, chances for exponential growth are higher.
Actually depends on how we choose ICO that has a good project or not. How dev writes whitepapper for us to learn so we can determine whether to invest or not. I usually prefer ico which was created in my country because it's easy to monitor
Most ICOs only focus on raising funds, after hardcap they don't care about the price of their tokens and don't seem to protect prices. as a result the token falls and cannot be controlled. investors will run away and trust in the ICO is lost by those who are greedy for money.
If we are completely honest the developers of an ico have no responsibility to protect the price of their tokens, that is up to the market to decide and if the market right now is deciding that almost all the tokens that come from icos are going down then that is what it's going to happen and there is nothing that you or the developers can do about it.
Both services and investment are important but, I think the services to render is the most important. Take for example the Linkchain ICO launch. The team have strategized a means to make the product sustainable by designing a scalable ecosystem and also creating a supportive community.
Is ICO the only investment that you can focus with? what type of services do you prefer if that ICO is crowding for it?
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
ICO will not die. It will be reorganized. Instead of ICO, we will see the rise of Security Token Offerings backed by the official shares of startups.
I believe any project team should first source their funds privately to develop community and get listed on the Exchanges. Doing ICO and crowdfunding before real coin listing is just a ploy to enrich yourself only and scam people. A real project needs the expert skill of security and liquidities managers to react the exchange dynamics. You don't leave the coin and investors to manipulations of whales etc. You should from the onset design a mechanism to prevent and forestall any pump and dump trend. A project should always have it's commercial real life use case otherwise it dies off after ICO and listing. Projects like Encocoin ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45804676) is designed to have a non ICO humble beginning, gradually throttle to momentum on listing and then fast track global trade adoption/usage. No pump and dump scenario as it is being managed by expert hands. Altcoins must proof it's mettle at the exchange before ever embarking on any ICO campaign. Work for the good of people and let people own it to prosper.
Most ICOs only focus on raising funds, after hardcap they don't care about the price of their tokens and don't seem to protect prices. as a result the token falls and cannot be controlled. investors will run away and trust in the ICO is lost by those who are greedy for money.
ICO should focus on both services and investment,provision of services by the ico will make them popular among the stakeholders and the public that means profit is not expected, while the return on investment will add to expansion of the organisation
I think investment and service are very important. Good service and investment are the key factors to increase ICO's success!
I think both are work together because willing investors ICO express is your full service ICO marketing agency specializing exclusively on getting investors to invest in your ICO whether an offering get notice in time is essential for it's success.
Project developers and ICOs must take all costs into account according to what they write on the roadmap. It also includes market and service listing fees as long as new coins enter the market
Just look at the ICOs succeeded in the market. Projects mainly focused on and yes this is what the object of an ICO and the investment is the tool to direct all the channels. At times, investment becomes the main source instead of a best project. Getting listed on an exchange needs a huge investment. A big expense. Few ICOs might have run out as they could not bear the fees of exchanges.
Whats your opinions on it?
I have always thought that paying an exchange to list your coin is a mistake, and the reason for that is the costs are very high and you are spending a big deal of the coins collected by the ico just to get listed into an exchange, when you could have used all that money to develop the project, and if the project is any good it will eventually be listed by the major exchanges. Whats your opinions on it?
Hey. I think that when launching an ICO project, an integrated approach is needed.
I think so, such that the ico should have had some capital saved up so that even if adequate fund is not raised from sales, they can dip into the finance to carry on with the project rather than waiting a year etc to be listed in an exchange or never get listed.
They need a plan B to carry on with the investment.
Hey. I think that when launching an ICO project, an integrated approach is needed.
I see the coins do not sell ICO but still grows well thanks to the good team. The sale of ICO for development is fine but be careful of scams.
Service and the amount needed to market the service are really indeed needed. Both are unavoidable. If the project reaches the market and succeeds, obviously the ICO requires money to get listed on an exchange. Huge money needed. Hence i would choose both criteria for an ICO to stand in the market with a good value.
It's depend on project future of ICO. If the ICO project is reaserched by many investors and they are interested, then the money you are targeting will be fulfilled. I guess many investors who already know the ins and outs of ICO so that they will entry depends on the ICO project. Many people say a term, before you want to be appreciated by others, you must appreciate what you do with your colleagues. Is ICO the only investment that you can focus with? what type of services do you prefer if that ICO is crowding for it?
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
ICO will not die. It will be reorganized. Instead of ICO, we will see the rise of Security Token Offerings backed by the official shares of startups.
We cant have it forever that's the reality if it won't die but it will be reorganized still there are people that will be skeptic to it after the number of ICOs that failed. The same thing can happen if there will be nothing done and possible that it will be crowded as well like this ICO era.
Service and the amount needed to market the service are really indeed needed. Both are unavoidable. If the project reaches the market and succeeds, obviously the ICO requires money to get listed on an exchange. Huge money needed. Hence i would choose both criteria for an ICO to stand in the market with a good value.
As someone said, real use-cases and development, products, or services that are ready to go to market is what is being sought after right now. The ICO should be more like traditional fundraising, where you actually have to have something to show in order to get funding. So the actual product or service, or the capability of the project to deliver is what is most important, but that usually means there is investment behind it.
Is ICO the only investment that you can focus with? what type of services do you prefer if that ICO is crowding for it?
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
ICO will not die. It will be reorganized. Instead of ICO, we will see the rise of Security Token Offerings backed by the official shares of startups.
Investment is about basing your mind about what benefit that will come up from the money put in and I think that will naturally come if the investment is channelled into a business area. In other words, that business area is the service that is meant to be provided, if the people see and believe in the need, prospect and future of the service, off course they would bring their money to invest on it.
So service should come first before looking at gains that will come from the investment.
So service should come first before looking at gains that will come from the investment.
Some ICO projects are looking very small amount of soft cap fund and hardcap fund at the cheap volume. These things will be good for the people whoever looking ICO as a investment factor, along with that people turn yourself to check the project is legit or not.
For bounty hunters side, I would stay with the listed coins only. Because we cannot assure that project will be listed on exchange at the same time we may see the project not reached the soft cap or no information worthy information their team side.
Most of the ICO these days are focusing only on the investments and not with the actual development of a project that can give a much more services to the community. A project that focusing more on services might not stand out in the market at early stage but has a potential for a long term investments and this is what a project they should be funding and not those shitcoins that's only good at pump and dump. For bounty hunters side, I would stay with the listed coins only. Because we cannot assure that project will be listed on exchange at the same time we may see the project not reached the soft cap or no information worthy information their team side.
Is ICO the only investment that you can focus with? what type of services do you prefer if that ICO is crowding for it?
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
The bloom of ICOs has come to an end and it is nearly dead. You may be optimistic to it but just like what majority are saying who can see an actual end to it is about to come. But, if that ICO has really something to offer and it will be useful and usable to their own service then it might be something else. Real world usage or use case is something what people are looking now.
Just look at the ICOs succeeded in the market. Projects mainly focused on and yes this is what the object of an ICO and the investment is the tool to direct all the channels. At times, investment becomes the main source instead of a best project. Getting listed on an exchange needs a huge investment. A big expense. Few ICOs might have run out as they could not bear the fees of exchanges.
Whats your opinions on it?
Whats your opinions on it?
I would say, both are required. Alone service does not help to achieve the goal. Investment is another main criteria to look at. What if the project is so good and the soft cap is done within few days and waits to get listed on exchanges. This does not help the fact right? Require a huge money to get listed on exchanges and i understand how difficult it is to get listed. Hence, money is really required to achieve the goal set.
Some ICO projects are looking very small amount of soft cap fund and hardcap fund at the cheap volume. These things will be good for the people whoever looking ICO as a investment factor, along with that people turn yourself to check the project is legit or not.
For bounty hunters side, I would stay with the listed coins only. Because we cannot assure that project will be listed on exchange at the same time we may see the project not reached the soft cap or no information worthy information their team side.
For bounty hunters side, I would stay with the listed coins only. Because we cannot assure that project will be listed on exchange at the same time we may see the project not reached the soft cap or no information worthy information their team side.
The number one goal of any project is to help people, meaning they exist to serve or make the lives of people much easier. So for me, they should focus more on services rather that investment. Of course at some point in time they need to get their money back, but it shouldn't be the case if they are really keen of alleviating the lives of people globally with their developed apps.
It projects think about it this way, there will be no pump-and-dump groups or the power of the whales will be lessen because investors would only focus on project with real life usage. Sadly, everyone here is in for the money, that's why we have seen good project just died out because those pump-and-dump group have milked them up to the last drop.
It projects think about it this way, there will be no pump-and-dump groups or the power of the whales will be lessen because investors would only focus on project with real life usage. Sadly, everyone here is in for the money, that's why we have seen good project just died out because those pump-and-dump group have milked them up to the last drop.
Just look at the ICOs succeeded in the market. Projects mainly focused on and yes this is what the object of an ICO and the investment is the tool to direct all the channels. At times, investment becomes the main source instead of a best project. Getting listed on an exchange needs a huge investment. A big expense. Few ICOs might have run out as they could not bear the fees of exchanges.
Whats your opinions on it?
Whats your opinions on it?
Jump to: