Topic: What do you look for when buying into new ico’s /tokens? - page 2. (Read 430 times)
I look the team, project and price. These three should be evaluated together to invest in a ico or token. Ico price also matters
look at team member, they are real people or not, are the ICO have a real business, on which market, and its really working or not in future business?
When the pre-sale or sale of tokens is announced, I always make my personal investigations about the company - check their profiles in social nets, look at their experience on Linkedin, find information about them online and in mass media.
Yes, that's a good start. What kinds of things do you look for in a white paper? What flags a good project / bad project?
Some ICO turn your money to crap some of them really success and make you rich like rich xD. As long you choose it right you'll be ok, i mean read their WP take a look for team details make sure real project happened
look at team member, they are real people or not, are the ICO have a real business, on which market, and its really working or not in future business?
Actually read their whitepaper and then Looking into roadmap is what i wanted to see. Their allocation budget for their project and how much they have raised before the ICO token.
I look foward their team and who backup in monetary terms the project besides us as investors.
Because If I can't confirm the ICO's is real and has interest on what they are doing I won't be investing my money.
Because If I can't confirm the ICO's is real and has interest on what they are doing I won't be investing my money.
D) Why would I gamble with shit ICOs and shittokens when there are decents projects out there?
my point exactly. What metrics do you use to define shit token vs worthwhile project?
I look at mass adoption / disruptive capability / network effect / new tech
what about you?
If it's premined it's shit so ICOs and tokens are inherently shit and taking steps backwards in crypto by being centralized and poorly distributed imo.
Either ways, a majority of the recent projects fall off in price after the ICO and find it extremely difficult to gain traction going in their favour as there are way too many choices to choose from and all the pump and dump scenarios still ongoing, which impacts it negatively.
true. Do you think most ICO's drop in value because of internal issues or are they targeted for pump/dump?
I come from a penny stock trading background and more than often I've seen groups target small stocks, buying them up and then dumping.
It's not the listed company, but rather day traders.
D) Why would I gamble with shit ICOs and shittokens when there are decents projects out there?
my point exactly. What metrics do you use to define shit token vs worthwhile project?
I look at mass adoption / disruptive capability / network effect / new tech
what about you?
Well lets step into the reality that most of these ICO projects never come close to delivering when it comes to the forecasted progress on their respective roadmaps and some of them abandon the project even after a successful fundraise in the ICO. About tokens without a roadmap, don't even bother investing in them.
Either ways, a majority of the recent projects fall off in price after the ICO and find it extremely difficult to gain traction going in their favour as there are way too many choices to choose from and all the pump and dump scenarios still ongoing, which impacts it negatively.
Either ways, a majority of the recent projects fall off in price after the ICO and find it extremely difficult to gain traction going in their favour as there are way too many choices to choose from and all the pump and dump scenarios still ongoing, which impacts it negatively.
D) Why would I gamble with shit ICOs and shittokens when there are decents projects out there?
Help me with your opinion.
We’re having an argument over whether it’s better to show cumulative funding goals in an ICO or token sale doc.
Does it:
a) give you more reassurance they know what they’re doing and have a roadmap
b) not make a difference to your opinion
c) negatively influence your opinion
d) something else
E.g:
CUMULATIVE FUNDING TARGETS - MILESTONES
$ 1M Development of advertiser transactional advertising blockchain & member wallet
$ 2,2M Development of marketplace & core market expansion
$ 3,75M Development of native ad engine & core market expansion (Q3 2018)
$ 6,90M Launch of native ad engine & core market expansion (Q4 2018)
$ 8,95M Debit card integration & core market expansion (Q1 2019)
$ 11,6M Launch debit card (Q2 2019)
Additional funds raised will be used to accelerate customer acquisition through Digital, Television & In-Market Activations.
We’re having an argument over whether it’s better to show cumulative funding goals in an ICO or token sale doc.
Does it:
a) give you more reassurance they know what they’re doing and have a roadmap
b) not make a difference to your opinion
c) negatively influence your opinion
d) something else
E.g:
CUMULATIVE FUNDING TARGETS - MILESTONES
$ 1M Development of advertiser transactional advertising blockchain & member wallet
$ 2,2M Development of marketplace & core market expansion
$ 3,75M Development of native ad engine & core market expansion (Q3 2018)
$ 6,90M Launch of native ad engine & core market expansion (Q4 2018)
$ 8,95M Debit card integration & core market expansion (Q1 2019)
$ 11,6M Launch debit card (Q2 2019)
Additional funds raised will be used to accelerate customer acquisition through Digital, Television & In-Market Activations.
Jump to: