I think because they don't need a blockchain and also they don't need money. they already have the big advantage of using apps all over the world. and they have also become the most popular applications without using the ICO platform. so if there are no goals and benefits that can be achieved for what they are making an ICO project. it is better to continue developing applications so that application users are more comfortable using the application.
Correct. The very reason why these projects/companies (Viber,skype etc.) did not conduct an ICO because they don't need a funding anymore since they already got an investors behind their back to fund the project. Also, they have nothing to do with cryptocurrency or blockchain or any payment settlements needed such as digital. But I hope these projects can come up of an idea with blockchain in it or something of their own coin giving much feature to their applications. 
Topic: Why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line not conduct ICO? - page 3. (Read 709996 times)
December 11, 2019, 05:31:51 AM
December 11, 2019, 05:08:10 AM
I think because they don't need a blockchain and also they don't need money. they already have the big advantage of using apps all over the world. and they have also become the most popular applications without using the ICO platform. so if there are no goals and benefits that can be achieved for what they are making an ICO project. it is better to continue developing applications so that application users are more comfortable using the application.
I think no one doesn't want more money. They haven't done it now but the future is possible, they can develop online shopping platforms and integrate it into. December 11, 2019, 05:01:33 AM
I think because they don't need a blockchain and also they don't need money. they already have the big advantage of using apps all over the world. and they have also become the most popular applications without using the ICO platform. so if there are no goals and benefits that can be achieved for what they are making an ICO project. it is better to continue developing applications so that application users are more comfortable using the application.
December 11, 2019, 04:19:57 AM
Line is planning to launch it's own global crypto exchange so it's up to them if they'll add an ICO for it.
https://www.ccn.com/messaging-giant-line-announces-new-global-crypto-exchange-excludes-u-s-japan/
yeah, and i heard it.https://www.ccn.com/messaging-giant-line-announces-new-global-crypto-exchange-excludes-u-s-japan/
so, for what they create coin? if in all of country give green lamp for crpytocurrent, i think they will do it. they can attract user if they use crypto, but it doesnt mean they will pull up their coin. its hard to stay or survive in here now
December 10, 2019, 05:36:09 PM
Blockchain proposes a new world. But it doesn't have to be all about blockchain. We don't need to include something popular in everything. Facebook is working on this issue. Libra can lead the way. But not all social media have to be involved.
November 20, 2019, 01:17:08 AM
Why exactly do you think that these companies need a crypto platform or to run an ICO? 
Okay, let's take WhatsApp off the list because Facebook's Libra. But if you should check these companies you have mentioned you will see that they are all big companies and there is really no need for them to run an ICO. These companies have been around for a very long time and there is no need for it and they don't even have a cryptocurrency and having is not a must and doesn't even determine success.
We already have lots of ICOs and it's meant for new companies in the cryptocurrency platform and there are still some platforms that run ICOs but still end up not achieving anything.
Okay, let's take WhatsApp off the list because Facebook's Libra. But if you should check these companies you have mentioned you will see that they are all big companies and there is really no need for them to run an ICO. These companies have been around for a very long time and there is no need for it and they don't even have a cryptocurrency and having is not a must and doesn't even determine success.We already have lots of ICOs and it's meant for new companies in the cryptocurrency platform and there are still some platforms that run ICOs but still end up not achieving anything.
November 10, 2019, 10:52:31 AM
These big companies doesn't conduct an ICO because some of them launched before the hype of the cryptocurrrencies and some of them see that it is not really a necessary to always go with ICO because they can conduct a private investing opportunities for those investors who really are interested in investing in technology and instead of doing ICO, they will just do IPO once they are successful.
These are established companies and ICO is meant to help new aspiring companies to develop products and services in the crypto sector and if these companies are coming up with a product that will help the crypto space they will raise the money from the market iteself and for that i do not think that they will start an IPO and then the main problem is that crypto is not regulated in majority of the countries and hence they will not raise using ICO as they might get into legal issues. 
November 03, 2019, 07:17:14 PM
Maybe they don't need it yet. Also, there are other methods of funding projects apart from ICO. They also want their reputations to be upheld positively. Their customer base is huge and they could also make more money by updating their app by increasing the size of app for download, so ICO seem unnecessary for them.
ICO is a funding process which is done to raise funds for the further development of the project. All the applications mentioned here has got a big fund reserve and it is making a big revenue through its user network. Further what these networks can do is create tokens that has realtime usage similar to libra. I don't know to what extent this happens. 
November 03, 2019, 05:44:11 PM
Maybe they don't need it yet. Also, there are other methods of funding projects apart from ICO. They also want their reputations to be upheld positively. Their customer base is huge and they could also make more money by updating their app by increasing the size of app for download, so ICO seem unnecessary for them.
October 05, 2019, 10:31:46 PM
people will surely welcome it enthusiastically and might scramble to get involved in the ICO if it holds a large company like that
they shouldn't hesitate to take that step because already trusted and many believe will be a great success
they shouldn't hesitate to take that step because already trusted and many believe will be a great success
October 05, 2019, 09:39:14 PM
I think it's all about the big risk of spoiling the reputation, now investors are investing less and less in ICO projects because every second one turns out to be a scam. That is, there is a high probability of failure.
ICO is meant for legit companies to raise money for their development and to give a token of the share so that the profit will be shared in the future, that is the real concept of the token market and there is nothing wrong in legit companies raising money with ICO, the problem comes when people who wanted to make a quick buck starts these fake projects and then do nothing and then disappears and we had many in the market.If legit companies are interested to raise money through ICO i am happy to invest in them.
ico is for all . legit or not so legit can conduct an ico . didnt you notice that there are many failed ico's before ? and some of them have failed because they arent legit and no one will trust them . speaking of legitness , the subject of the op are purely legit companies . id happy to see them having thier own ico's because i have a feeling that you and many people will going to invest on them . not only investors but bounty hunters like me are going to get happy if they will also issue a bounty and airdrops , and i wont hesitate or doubt to join them .
October 05, 2019, 06:49:35 PM
I think it's all about the big risk of spoiling the reputation, now investors are investing less and less in ICO projects because every second one turns out to be a scam. That is, there is a high probability of failure.
ICO is meant for legit companies to raise money for their development and to give a token of the share so that the profit will be shared in the future, that is the real concept of the token market and there is nothing wrong in legit companies raising money with ICO, the problem comes when people who wanted to make a quick buck starts these fake projects and then do nothing and then disappears and we had many in the market.If legit companies are interested to raise money through ICO i am happy to invest in them.
October 05, 2019, 05:28:29 PM
Well, I think it's because they find Cryptocurrency illegal or let say not fully legal the reason why they didn't conduct ICO. I think they already know what crypto is and they also know that they can earn big money but still, they don't launch their crypto platform so that is my own point of view. Or probably who knows these social media will launch soon like what happened on Facebook that recently successfully launched their payment processor platform.
October 05, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
Are you sure that they really need ICO?
October 05, 2019, 02:02:10 PM
Perhaps they think about it and plan in the future. But it seems to me that all these companies don't need additional financing in the form of ICO, since they are already have quite high popularity among users.
October 05, 2019, 01:21:15 PM
Maybe because ico/cryptocurrency is not yet legal in the whole world, that's why they are not yet confident to conduct that activity, also they are afraid that the government will sue them because of it not yet legal, they are just only taking care of their reputation, but I think they already know this one and will take action sooner or later, im sure they already have a plan with this now.
October 05, 2019, 01:01:23 PM
Many social media looks do not support with ICOs project because they want to keep their member away from ICO have not the warranty with ICO get profit after listing on exchange market, they want to keep their member stop lost assets or money with investing in ICOs project but when ICO have higher price after listing is why not.
October 05, 2019, 01:37:25 AM
These big companies doesn't conduct an ICO because some of them launched before the hype of the cryptocurrrencies and some of them see that it is not really a necessary to always go with ICO because they can conduct a private investing opportunities for those investors who really are interested in investing in technology and instead of doing ICO, they will just do IPO once they are successful.
October 04, 2019, 03:27:38 PM
I think it's all about the big risk of spoiling the reputation, now investors are investing less and less in ICO projects because every second one turns out to be a scam. That is, there is a high probability of failure.
October 04, 2019, 01:34:26 PM
Why would they conduct an ICO if they already have the means and the audience? I think this doesn’t make much sense. It is much easier to create a new product that will be useful for users of this platforms.
It is enough for such projects to create a currency within their platforms so that users would gladly buy it. The question here is the advisability of creating such a currency.
As I said, ICO makes sense for new projects that need primary capitalization for their own implementation.
The OP ought to have even know this before asking this question, except he does not know how big the company he mentioned are, when Facebook wanted to make their intent of creating Libra coin known, it started form the fund raising they did and nobody knew about it except few people who had gotten the hint that they did so internally and till date, I learnt they generated lots of billions of dollars without the input of external people, so I wonder why a company that succeeded in doing that and already have the large user database to make their project successful would conduct ICO again. It is enough for such projects to create a currency within their platforms so that users would gladly buy it. The question here is the advisability of creating such a currency.
As I said, ICO makes sense for new projects that need primary capitalization for their own implementation.
ICO mainly are for some of these startup companies who are unknown and do not have much money to establish their project, while all these companies are very big companies to even buy the whole of the cryptocurrency market off.
Jump to: