Topic: What to look at in a good Whitepaper when joining ICO (Read 171 times)

wow, yes good point at having whitepaper before ICO rolled out and checking linkedin profile. Thank you for this. I learned a lot today.

I never thought about the LinkedIn profile search.. good looking out, and something I'll use in the future, thanks!

Hi all,

Good reply from atrocityx.
1) I would add that checking the LinkedIn profile of the ICO funders/team is key
Some of the LinkedIn profile are complete scam even though they look great on paper - You can spot scam profile by the numbers of connections these profiles - that's a way to do it.

2) Whitepaper is needed indeed - KodakOne is a great example, they have no white paper


Any other feedbacks/tricks - please shout

In my opinion, it is absolutely necessary to roll out a whitepaper, before launch.
I can't imagine why any serious project would not have one. It would be impossible for me to take them seriously if they cannot even give me a run-down on what they're offering.

Otherwise it just seems like a coin that wants money because they believe their name to be clever; plus, how are you to know what the coin is about in any respect without it?

okay, thank you for replying.

Just one more question, is it important for an ICO to have whitepaper when rolled out? Coz for me it is but I see some  ICO that seems promising that have no whitepaper yet or whitepaper on progress.

I don't read many ICO whitepapers so I'm going to approach this from a different angle than most. I have read the Bitcoin whitepaper and from what I can derive from that experience I would say critical thinking is your best ally when trying to determine whether or not an ICO has a future. Do not be optimistic or pessimistic, but be realistic about what problems may arise from their project and what is it actually bringing to the table. You will realize quickly that many are not interested in offering a real solution, they are interested in masquerading as innovation in a desperate cash-grab.

Throughout the few recent ICOs I have read I will say that too much of the language is emotions and this is always a bad sign. You want to hear practical, technical solutions to very complex problems; if it sounds oversimplified, be suspicious. As the other user above mentioned, never put too much faith in anything that is a copy of another coin; I say this to imply that any coin with a future is going to serve a unique, and meaningful purpose solving a real-world problem.

Go read the Bitcoin whitepaper, then read all of the questions about scale-ability, real-world application and other solid queries that developers threw at Satoshi from the beginning. Attempt to mimic this scrutiny towards other coins and see where their flaws are, see where their strengths are. If it leaves you with more questions than answers, save yourself the trouble and throw whatever money you were planning to invest into BTC.

To answer your question first.. no it should not seem like a term paper or a buisness proposal in college.. if a white paper is too technical and doesn't explain its initiative in a way that common people would understand then the white paper has failed.. If it fails your analysis it will likely fail others, and your pessimism is most likely warranted..

Here are soome general rules I follow...

1) First off, I completely write off coins that use a name ripoff.. Like Neo Gold.. or Bitcoin Cash Gold or Litecoin Cash  or Ethereum Classic Blue Gold... you get the point (and yes I would have missed Ethereum Blue in this case, which actually seems to have some value).
2) When examining the white paper.. ask yourself what a coin's competition would be?  If its an anonymous coin, what does it do that Monero doesn't?  What is it really adding to the current coin's that its competing with as a unique use case?  Its not enough anymore to just have yet ANOTHER smart contract or privacy coin.. they have to be adding features or something that seperates itself out.
3) Make sure the white paper is in good English, you can usually tell how much of a scam coin something is by the way it is written.  (to be fair I would have missed out  on Antshares with this one.. as successful as NEO is.. its white paper was terribly written English at first).
4) Does the white paper have an attached video or stock art of commonly used animations?  This means they just threw something together as a cheap presentation and it was either hurried/low budget.. this is not something you want to see when investing thousands of dollars into something.
5) Check their twitter page and other media sources to see their activity level and quality of content.. is it something theyre doing auto follow to farm followers or does it seem well established and posting content that is rich.. you may can even fake a good white paper but your marketing department will bleed through if its weak pretty easily.
6)  Common sense will take you far.. if it feels poorly written and lacks basic information flow.. it probably is bad.. it should just feel like an organic healthy project and not something created on a website template with a poorly written white paper that is too technical or hard to understand.. and the media outlets surrounding the website and white paper should feel high quality and not a follower farm.  Eye tests are the most vital of all information and the other specifics don't really matter if this step can't be passed.. start here!

Hi everyone.

I'm newbie in ICO and I hope anyone can help me figure out what to look at when checking whitepaper of an ICO so I will know if it's gonna be a good project or just another scam or shitcoin.

I usually see in whitepaper what the project can do in the future and it seems all the same so what am I missing? Is it really should be like a term paper or business proposal on college?

Also, besides for dev team what should be to look at at good ICO?

Thank you for answering.