Bitcoin Forum

"Good ideas and solid fundamentals don't experience lightning fast growth. But that's what assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum brought to the table to start, and they took years to grow. That's how real good ideas and solid fundamentals grow. Slowly, but surely, long term, with occasional hype and correction as they grow. Bullsh*t, on the other hand, explodes on the whims of emotion, and quickly returns to nothingness, perhaps to briefly do it again months or years later."

Now - we all know that the I is for Initial. But what are your thoughts on relaunching an ICO, given not enough interest generated the first time around? 'Good ideas with strong fundamentals' can be completely sound as far as businesses go, but they may not do as well as scamcoin marketing.

There are so many project that failed to reach the attention from the investors and try again to make another bullshit to reach their target to raised a lot of money from there.
This just like a grass.

It might be that I sits for Initial but I think for some people the term of ICO is becoming "whenever they can raise more money" and it's similar to "crowdfunding". Sort of like Google has become a stand alone word like in "google your own name".

I wouldn't be surprised if there are going to be ICO2's or ICO3's and in some way we already have those with the Pre-ICO and ICO. And I guess the air-drops are a Post ICO  ;D

Thanks for your views.

I have also been disappointed in the number of outrageous ICOs not based in reality, and the rampant abuse of crypto as a quick money grab scheme.

With this post, I was trying to gauge whether or not an ICO2 would be accepted by the community. Seems that it's fairly acceptable, though I'd love to hear more people weigh in on this.

If the blockchain project I am working with does not meet its fundraising goal, perhaps we will announce an [ICO2] to come clean about our prior attempt and how we have updated our strategy since :)

With so much of ICOs coming everyday and tokens generated everyday the market is crowded with lots of ShitICOs .
It has been difficult for good ICOs to take a stand in the market because all what people want is to gain money rather than a good coin to emerge in the market. Investors are investing in ICOs just so that they can make more money out of it and not because they actually believe in the particular projects. I am not accusing anybody but I have seen many ShitICOs raising more money than the actual good projects.
If the ICO is actually good then giving it an another chance won't be a bad idea. They could just announce it as a phase 2 of the same ICO but there should be a little more development on it than the one it had before.