Topic: WHAT DO YOU LOOK AT WHEN EVALUATING A CRYPTO PROJECT - page 3. (Read 524 times)
First of all, I start looking at the project team (whether it is known or not). Next, see if there is a whitepaper (as it is written there and if there is all the information). Then I see if the project has a product. These are the three main criteria for me. Then I check social networks, ratings and so on.
knowing the concept project from the whitepaper is the thing to do. When feeling the concept there is good enough then look at the team that runs the project to make it more convincing that it's run by the right people. see wallet is there to make sure the token at their disposal as well. though not accurate at least this could help.
My order
1- the whitepaper. I love going through to know exactly what the project has got to offer
2- The team members, will check through for their past achievements and how well grounded they are
3- the tokens- it's use and what benefit it will offers to holders
1- the whitepaper. I love going through to know exactly what the project has got to offer
2- The team members, will check through for their past achievements and how well grounded they are
3- the tokens- it's use and what benefit it will offers to holders
looking at the hype, if anybody talks about it, I'm like 80% it will be flop when it hit an exchange. Well hype can be good sometimes, just need some research of course
Fellows, I would like to ask you to describe your evaluation process of a crypto project:
What do you look at?
In what order?
When looking at some X factor, when do you judge it in a positive or a negative manner?
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
Tks
What do you look at?
In what order?
When looking at some X factor, when do you judge it in a positive or a negative manner?
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
Tks
in fact in terms of this assessment we cannot do it patent because each project certainly has its own strengths and weaknesses, and we judge it flexibly. more often in the case of the team or partnership they rely on is a good thing and does not give too much bonus for the tokensale
First look at the team that makes this project. Then on the very idea, already on these two criteria it will be clear scam or not. Well, now a little very sensible, you can protect on the fingers.
I hope you're referring to coins too, not just tokens, anyway, the first thing I check is the market cap - circulating supply, I have no intention of using in my day-to-day no coin or token above of 250M units, so no matter the technology or anything else, I'll be seeing only the speculative side and trying to get more BTC! Then I'll check the product type and/or read WP, I know most things today are only in WP, but with that I can reduce the number of SCAMMERS. Then I do a different analysis if it's Coin PoW or Coin PoS and Tokens! Lately I have little interaction with tokens.
Once I was interested in one project but when I went to their official website and saw a whole bunch of grammatical mistakes there, this project ceased to interest me. Therefore, since then I also look at the information on the site and how it is written. But the first thing, of course, I look at the composition of the team.
The idea is the main driver. If it is interesting enough, I'd read the whitepaper. Then I'd then research the team, partners and token metrics (for an ICO).
For example, I am really interested in smart contracts. If I find something innovative happening with them, it immediately piques my interest.
As you can guess from my user name, I am a big fan of Vite which is implementing Smart Contracts on a Block lattice (DAG). Another one to watch out for me is Origo which again has to do with Smart contracts only this time they're privacy focused contracts.
For example, I am really interested in smart contracts. If I find something innovative happening with them, it immediately piques my interest.
As you can guess from my user name, I am a big fan of Vite which is implementing Smart Contracts on a Block lattice (DAG). Another one to watch out for me is Origo which again has to do with Smart contracts only this time they're privacy focused contracts.
Fellows, I would like to ask you to describe your evaluation process of a crypto project:
What do you look at?
In what order?
When looking at some X factor, when do you judge it in a positive or a negative manner?
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
Tks
What do you look at?
In what order?
When looking at some X factor, when do you judge it in a positive or a negative manner?
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
Tks
What do you look at? - I always check the whitepaper first to find out the usage of the token if it is attainable or realistic.
In what order?
- Check the following procedure
1. Whitepaper/Roadmap
2. Background of the team they have, also the owner or developer
3. Budget for the bounty allocation categories
4. the usages of the utility of the token
When looking at some X factor, when do you judge it in a positive or a negative manner?
- of course I will judge it in a positive manner.
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
- It has to be transparent to their investors or community up to end of their project.
What do you look at?
in one word: innovation.that is mostly because i am sick and tired of all the copy coins that don't introduce anything new and keep repeating the same ideas that were introduced years ago by their ancestors.
additionally that innovation has to be implemented well enough because sometimes people take a very interesting idea or innovation and ruin it by a terrible implementation.
Quote
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
that is a different question in my opinion. i only look for shitcoins that are more pumpable. because i want profit when i invest and good altcoin projects don't give as much profit.
I would focus on how active the dev team are, if they get things done according to the dates in a roadmap then you can bet that the team behind the project are actually people interested in the development of the project. They also need to be communicate with the audience, sometimes you find projects where people show interested but the team doesn't provide feedback.
I prefer to check whitepaper before deciding to invest.
A whitepaper is important, but nowadays, it seems like whitepapers mainly use buzzwords and use a lot of technical terms to make them sound smart to draw attention, and there's also the fact that some projects simply copy-paste a whitepaper from anothe project, so you gotta be careful if you're only look at a whitepaper to evaluate a project.
Well, here is a long list. For a start, I look at the documents of the projects. I fully study what the project is intended for. Looking for information on the team. Reviewing the project site. I watch what other experts say about the project.
Then I do my analysis. If the ideas are too complex or too many tasks do not even look.
Then I do my analysis. If the ideas are too complex or too many tasks do not even look.
I agree that the essence of the project is very important, because now there are very few ICO that have an original and necessary idea. It is also worth paying attention to the development team and their plan for the development and scaling of the project.
First of all I try to understand the validity of the project, if I do not have the right skills I look for informations from different sources. Secondly, communications are very important to me.
The first thing I do by evaluating crypyo project is that I check their website and White paper to know what the project have to deliver, follow by how Long the project will last, the total supply, how much per token and lastly the team member.
The project idea itself and the people behind it, other than this is all other factors are just BS, you can now buy everything with little cost starting from WP, fake community, fake rating, and the list goes on. The project idea and the people behind this idea are all that matters now and especially the people behind the project is probably the most reliable factor to decide the legalization on a project.
I try to see if the team are who they say they are not edited pics... and I try to look at the number of interested investors... note ... the investors are not the number of people in the telegram chat... You can check out the number of interested investors in the bitcointalk Ann thread
Fellows, I would like to ask you to describe your evaluation process of a crypto project:
What do you look at?
In what order?
When looking at some X factor, when do you judge it in a positive or a negative manner?
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
Tks
I prefer to check whitepaper before deciding to invest. Working product is big + for ICO and this additional advantage can return in other ways to project. Investing to project for strong team is debatable due to professional human factor. What do you look at?
In what order?
When looking at some X factor, when do you judge it in a positive or a negative manner?
What a project needs to have for you to invest on it?
Tks
The main thing I examined was the Project Team. Must have a clear and experienced team and have a clear record. that is to say, you have to see who the people behind the project are, because the success of a project is also due to its big name. Then examine the long-term goals or road map.
Goodluck for you.
Goodluck for you.
Jump to: