I'm sure the project team is obliged to create a functioning product first!
Not some abstract prototype, but a fully working model. Why should I believe that they will create what they promise? Why not created? No money to pay developers? Why are they so confident that they will be able to find developers,
When will they collect the money? Look at my nickname. And now add to my nickname: .com What do we see? It's a working (successful) business!
Did I need money at the start of my project? Oh sure! But I was sure - there is no right to ask people for money for nothing.
Topic: What do you think about venture like A/B/C/D rounds ICOs? (Read 312 times)
Hardcap can be useful for any kind of projects but projects don't use that big amount of fund for just themselves for example tezos will give his $50M to the projects that will be built in their platform.
But, we need a pre-ICO round stricty for marketing reasons.
Yes, exactly.
If ppl like the idea, they can finance a good media campaign and get a great price on tokens.
If not - no ICO.
The good thing is that everybody can see how the dev deliver on evary step and the token price goes up and up reasonably.
I like this idea!
But, we need a pre-ICO round stricty for marketing reasons. This will grab media attention, create demand and make a big splash on the forums, Telegram ad Slack channels. Very much like running a Kickstarter campaign.
Seed needs to be millions because most of these startups are broke and only have tokens for payment.
Thoughts?
But, we need a pre-ICO round stricty for marketing reasons. This will grab media attention, create demand and make a big splash on the forums, Telegram ad Slack channels. Very much like running a Kickstarter campaign.
Seed needs to be millions because most of these startups are broke and only have tokens for payment.
Thoughts?
Most projects don't really need 10m or 20m or even 250m$ right at start.
But all projects try to raise as much as possible right now.
From the dev side I think not exactly greed is the question, but the fear that if they announce they want just 1m right now, and will hold a second ICO next year the first one won't be successful.
So I really think the right structure of the ICO would be like.
SEED (pre-ICO) hard-cap 500k$ - that's more then enough to build a working prototype of ANY project
Yes, I would be able ANY project with 500k, even a good working prototype of a search-engine with features that differs it from competition.
ICO round A - min CAP and max hard CAP 3m - 20% of the project shares, 80% team and pre-ICO investors.
ICO round B - 6 min CAP and max hard CAP 10m - 20% round B investors, 16% round A investors, 64% team and pre-ico investors.
From my point of view round B should be very popular even by round A investors that would want to buy more if the project shows good dynamic.
But the question is would there be enough people wanting to invest in round A, knowing that the team will hold 80% of the tokens and issue more in about 1 year making the total share of round A investors 16% and not 20% though the price at round B is minimum twice the price of round A.
So what do you think?
Will it fly or will it turn away a lot of people that like hard-caped tokens which will never be issued again?
But all projects try to raise as much as possible right now.
From the dev side I think not exactly greed is the question, but the fear that if they announce they want just 1m right now, and will hold a second ICO next year the first one won't be successful.
So I really think the right structure of the ICO would be like.
SEED (pre-ICO) hard-cap 500k$ - that's more then enough to build a working prototype of ANY project
Yes, I would be able ANY project with 500k, even a good working prototype of a search-engine with features that differs it from competition.
ICO round A - min CAP and max hard CAP 3m - 20% of the project shares, 80% team and pre-ICO investors.
ICO round B - 6 min CAP and max hard CAP 10m - 20% round B investors, 16% round A investors, 64% team and pre-ico investors.
From my point of view round B should be very popular even by round A investors that would want to buy more if the project shows good dynamic.
But the question is would there be enough people wanting to invest in round A, knowing that the team will hold 80% of the tokens and issue more in about 1 year making the total share of round A investors 16% and not 20% though the price at round B is minimum twice the price of round A.
So what do you think?
Will it fly or will it turn away a lot of people that like hard-caped tokens which will never be issued again?
Jump to: