Bitcoin Forum

Lately all the projects try to attract best faces onboard for their projects, I started noticing that they are almost the same everywhere. What things are more important for you? Are advisors one of the most significant criteria?

All the criteria in the project are important and we must be careful in analyzing them. Project advisor is also important, but not an indicator that the project will be successful and for me the advisor is a complement to make potential investors believe and interested in the project.

I think it is just a marketing decision, when you see the face of these advisors on their website, it is likely you will be swayed to invest in the ICO and generate alot of hype, Draper and Cuban are two billionaires they are using to sell ICOs now, before what they do is to look for big company to partner but I think that is not enough again

What do you mean by advisors? Bounty managers?
I care about them but not too much, if the manager has a newbie profile that won't make me suspect the worst - just the guy spends his time on developing, not chatting.

For me the most things to find a good ico is the roadmap and the team and ofcourse the good to be true announcement. Its true that most of the ico now are almost the same, and lately they are becoming a scam ico. So you better to review the projects first and good thing to ask somebody to give a good advise.

It is definitely important. Advisors who are willing to put their names out there in support of an ICO means that they are risking their reputation to a certain extent, if the ICO fails. In order to avoid that, I would assume that respectable advisors would refrain from supporting scammy ICOs. So advisors mean a lot to me.

Most people will say that I'm wrong but I don't put much attention on advisors while I'm analyzing white paper. If I have any doubts about the project I may only try to find their linkedin profiles to check if they are real people and have any connection to the project. You will never know the amount of advosor's participation in the project. It feels like usualy their involvement includes about 1-2 skype calls.

Not entirely, I think advisor only as an object when doing research I think. What makes Project interesting is their Team & vision

Here in this thread there are many criteria for the choice ICO: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2901548
Advisors are important. Good advisors willn't go to bad projects. Most often they get paid in tokens. Therefore, it is important for them to get the tokens of a successful project. Some are paid on etherium, bitcoin and fiat money, but more often in tokens of project.

I care much about the dev team members and their track records, the marketing team and the roadmap

Advisors cost a lot of money.
You can count approximate expenses for each ICO for understanding how high probability of scam.

To be honest, I don't bother with the advisors. But this is not to say that If I see the face of a thief on the board of advisors that I would over look that and go ahead and send my cash to them. Of course, not. My may concern isn't advisors but the roadmap of the coin, its use and the expected total supply. If a coin is in billions and the ICO price is high (say up to $1), that is a no-no sign for me. I believe supply is key in determining the price of a coin. But if it's a couple of cents I might just toss them a few dollar for so many coins.

No, only people I trust that have experience in crypto currencies, lest Bitconnect repeats itself.

Do you mean the minimal contribution price? I agree that it shoudn't be too high, but 1$ isn't too small?

Yes, consultants are also factors that need to be referenced.
Sometimes you can judge which trading platform the ICO project might be based on from a consultant from the ICO team.

If we talk about Initial Coin Offerings, there is a lot of variables to consider and I believe the team advisors is one of many variables. But we should really look into the bigger pictures as a whole team not only the team advisors. We must deeply research the background of the founder, the developers and the team behind supporting the project.

Yes, advisor is an important position, usually an advisor is already experienced in making the project successful, it can attract investors and support the marketing team to reach the target, so it can be said that one of the success factor in ICO is the team behind the ICO, people will check the legitimate and the experience of the team before they invest

If the project is truly has potential there's no need for such Advisors. A talented team, impressive whitepaper and attainable road map are my requirements in choosing ICO. Advisors are just a plus points to the ICO but it's not a must.

of course we are.The advisors are so important for a project destiny they guiding well also the good advisors are very good pr for the project.people trust the ıco's because of advisors

Some advisor really make truth review about project, but some of the get paid for do that. So do your own research is the best thing you can do

Advisory I dont really consider in an ICO project, I'm more concerned with seeing Whitepaper to be my consideration than advisor's project

This criterion is not determinative, but it is obvious that it is one of the most important. Well-known consultants are at least one of the signs that the project is not a fake. You can write to them by direct link and ask a question

If they advise seems credible, sure, why not? But it's important to form your opinion first and then look for 2nd opinions.

You might have always missed something.

I don't look advisors when it comes to ICOs because most of them are not interested in the project and just want to make some bucks with advertisement. I focus on the team; they don't have to be that popular but they should have an experience.

the development team and advisors are the most important selection criteria. if the adviser's last few projects were unsuccessful, then conclusions about the next can be done easily. on the other hand, past success does not guarantee anything :)

I personally do not check out advisors while analysing an ico but you are right the trend is changing and if a famius person is advisor the ico sells out quickly, we have seen john mcafee and mark cuban as advisor in some projects and they sold out quickly.

Actually I am interesting in advisor becausef they have good carier they dont want to cheat people. I joined sether because of Mcaffea I trusth him

I pay attention on advisors of course. Team and advisors are very important for me when I make choice. If these people are highly experienced I trust more

Yeah sure. Advisors matters to me. A project with good advisors will definitely end up doing well. So it is important for me to have a good advisor in a project i am looking to invest.

I always try to study the whole team of upcoming ICO and the success of previous projects, if any. But the presence of a good Advisor is not a 100 % guarantee that the project will be successful.

Now there are so many fake news and FUD in the network, that it's hard for me to believe in something, there are a couple of resources that are verified, for example https://www.investopedia.com/

Correct, since each ICOs were different and also is your preference as an investor each criteria or even a specific criteria may greatly affect the success of an ICO and your steps as an investor. I wouldn't say advisors are totally reliable in these matter but they are truly one to consider when choosing an ICO.

ICOs involve famous advisors to make people buy their tokens:) it is absolutely clear. A good advisor is a brand. A strong brand which advertises your campaign. An average investor will more likely trust an ico which is promoted by a famous person.

Everything will depend on the project and the impact that want to establish, there are projects that only a good Whitepaper is already enough to encourage investors, but there are projects with great detail and and great promises and consequently need an accessory to stimulate a demand.

Actually first that I check in joining an ICO project are the developers. Also, their managers. Because there are a lot of managers that are really reliable and does not just choose any project to handle. They study the project very well before they will engage in such.

Of course, the composition of the team is one of the important things that we should consider in addition to the roadmap.

No i don't care much about advisor because i focus more on the team member as they are the one that will build the project. They contribute to the project but i don't think it's that much, the most significant criteria is their whitepaper and team background so you know they can build the project or not.

Of course, I pay attention to advisors, because they put their reputation on this project and if the project turns out to be a fraud. First of all, it will be the reputation of this person that strikes, as happens very often with the creator of the Waves coin, his reputation is already below the floor.

Lately advisors are only for marketing hype as most of them are same for all project, but at least I recommend to check because if someone famous became advisor of certain project then Hype will increase and maybe you can generate profit from it.

actually, i dont care too much about the advisor behind in some ICO project, i think thats is only mere formality, nothing else.
even if they are ex-worker on the big famous company in the world or crypto company/project before, its only give me a little plus point for joining those ICO.

the important is, the project, core team, and other explanation of the project are clear

Sometimes I see and sometimes do not. I personally just see the Team Protection and the ICO holder. From there I can conclude a good ICO in the future or not. Example only Policypal Network is one Project that Team and Advisor is very good

Yes and Look up the developers and important lead roles on LinkedIn, GitHub, Twitter, etc. If you can't find consistent accounts with names, faces, and past projects, this is a BIG red flag that the ICO may be a scam

Ask questions. Reddit, slack channels, email, whatever; give the devs a poke and ask about the project. r/ethtrader is generally a good jumping-off point

Basically, I try not to use anyone's advice, but I'm guided only by my own observations and forecasts, because I trust only in myself

I'm not inclined to use information from some dubious telegram channels or videos from YouTube, I try to see how accurate the forecasts of a particular resource are before taking into account the advice

There's a lot of different factors that are important for an ICO/a project but a strong team (including advisors) is definitely one of them, I think. If a project has a strong team it's more trustworthy so people are more likely to invest, it's a safer bet (especially if the team has a good track record) and it might generate more hype.

When investing on ICOs we must watch all parameters we can...

And good advisors is a good thing, sicne with best advisors more people must get engajed to the project, but it's not the only thing you must look, and not even the main parameter to consider.

In my opinion, the whole idea behing the creation of the ICO is much more important then good advisors.

I don't think that are important because I bet that most of the times they don't even care about the project, and just lend their name for profit. I usually take the advisors just as another marketing stun for the project. Also we can't even be sure they are real advisors, and the team might just be using their name to promote their project. If I actually see the advisors being active on the project, either by promoting it or helping in it's development, then I might take them in consideration.

The first and foremost criteria for investing in a project is the team of professionals backing up the project, then comes the advisory board if the advisory board has good members it means that the project is up to good.

No,i actually reading most of the whitepapers of each projects before i decide which bounty campaign should i participate,most of the new ICOs are business minded which means they aim for the money and not the technology that can bring development in people's life.Theres a lot of things to consider in joining ICO like the product,founder's background developers's previous projects,these are some of the things you need to consider before joining any ICOs.

Its just one of the factors but not ultimately the basis of the decision making. After looking into what these credible advisors are endorsing, one needs to definitely make his own research and assessment. The credibility of these advisors are usually based on the success of their endorsement which can be equated with their technical analysis capability. At some point, a good benchmark of your own analysis as well.

Advisors doesnt affect the project's outcome,you should read all about the things you need to know about your ICO so you wont end up crying because you lose your investment,You need to know that joining ICOs has more risk than trading alone.If you really want to invest with ICOs,choose an ICO that has a good working product/services,good developers,reputable founder,and has clear roadmap and whitepaper these some basic things you need to check.

Yes, I pay attention at everything that can help me getting additional information about some certain ICO, including all these advices. Meanwhile, I take a decision if to invest into it or not myself.

considering advisors on choosing ICOs?
My answer is No but at some point it depends.
Advisors for me were just paid in order to elevate ICO popularity and ratings because they are expecting that celebrities could bring their ICO to attract investors but in reality they're just a plain business and nothing more.
In my personal reasons, I would rather see the importance of  the project than considering the company's advisors because the project is the best reason why their blockchain exist.

While choosing ico I did not see who counsel her because counsel is not too important for me to see ico good, I only saw who manager and how big the potential to the price ico her good.

Advisors add more popularity on the ICO and it is good to have the best advisor for their projects. but, that is not the big factor, the team should be one also and people of the team is good to see. Marketing strategy must be superb as it is the main branch to produce the massive growth of the sale and the popularity of the ICO to the investors.
the great roadmap is also a good point, better to do this on time or earlier. the whitepaper is the first page to read for investors if the ICO project has the potential.

At some point advisors are important to but in reality investors shouldn't rely on advisors before putting your hard-earned into an ICO because I know that they're just being paid to attract more investors.
I should give an advice to young investors that they should consider more the effectiveness of the project than advisors because advisors cannot save the company but project does and it's always a project what their marketing value is and not by advisors alone.

I think that the first one is developers team. Second one is white paper of project. Advisors are worth to check but it is not so important

Advisors contribute to the success of the ICO, however it is not only advisors that you pay attention to, some projects don't have any product to offer, therefore irrespective of the advisors, the project will just be hyped but will offer nothing to investors.

Of course advisors of any project have a strong impact on the project, expereinced advisors can take the project to the right direction. I always suggest to check the back support  (i.e linked partners and advisors) before joining it.

Of course, I look at the team. But I'm more guided by how much the project can be of interest to people, how real the amount of money they want to collect. Well, or if this ico is already on the hip, then in principle you can and do not pay attention to all the rest))

many indicators to determine good ICO. any factor is very important including an advisor. we must be very careful in determining the ICO to avoid the ICO scam, find information through the forum or from experts cryptocurrency.

Yes it is. If there is a reputable advisor associated on a particular ICO then it will skyrocket for sure. Imagine what happened to TenX. Vitalik buterin was one of their advisor. The ICO was finished instantly and a great hype happened. the price of TenX hyped even if they dont have existing product yet.

However, Advisors is just one of a indicator to know if the ICO is good or not.

advisor is usually only used as a marketing medium of the team or the developer only
they usually hire an advisor just to get their big name on a project they live on
the most important is the validity of team profiles and developers

When choosing a good ICO looking at project advisors is important. But also there are plenty of other things you should look at when choosing an ICO. You should read everything related to ICO. You should do your own research specially reading the white paper is a must. Getting crypto expert's opinions is also a massively important when choosing an ICO.

That is very normal.
A good advisor is hired by multiple ICO's to advise them.
you may see same faces of advisor in many ICO's

Yes i Do you pay attention & its definitely important things . you can judge which trading platform the ICO project might be based on from a consultant from the ICO team.one of the success factor in ICO is the team behind the ICO, people will check the legitimate and the experience of the team before they invest ico.

I hardly pay attention to advisors honestly. I always feel like advisors are written there just for advertising purposes, its like paid ads. I do think people add them into account but I do not.

reputable advisors do help to filter out potential good ICOs from scams. they also bring in their experience and help drive projects towards success

As few ICO will be real success, any aspect of it has to be studyed. The advisor is obviously important. "Famous" ones are experienced and their presence is a good indication of the quality of the project.

Having a consultant is certainly not the main criterion when choosing an ICO project. He does not guarantee that the upcoming project will be successful. Basically, you need to rely on more important criteria, such as: road map, white paper, team working on the project, the value of their released token. Involvement of a consultant in a team is most likely a move to attract potential investors, this is the person who should tell a beautiful story about the project, etc.

As one of the factors. Unfortunately, with so many projects at the moment, sometimes there is not enough time to check all the information, and the advisor is quite a good determinant. You can see his previous projects and how they passed.

A majority of famous advisers are promoting ICO just for money, nevertheless they create bustle around project and it influences on collection progress.  So when I see Mcafee of Drake in advisory board,  it makes me confident in success of ICO

Oh sure. It is very important to pay attention to the advisors. On the one hand, they also recieve payment from companies, and they have a subjective opinion. On the other hand, in order not to spoil their reputation, famous advisers are unlikely to support scammers.

Recently, I began to notice that many projects specifically take famous advisers to raise more money. I try to look not only at the composition of the team, but also on the possibility of implementing the idea.     

Yes, sure.
I have to admit I bought Universa Ico (my first ever bought ICO) just because I saw name of Mr. Mac Affee.
Turn out this is a good project.

Beware the ICO advisor, the ICO specialist, the ICO advisory and yes it depends on what role they are playing. Are they handling the end to end ICO process or just the PR and Marketing?

For me, advisors are one of those important factors that will make a project more realistic but my focus is not about them but of course to the idea of the project and to the team who works with it. Ideas must be unique and not a copy paste of anothers project. Working application is also one factor on how motivated the developers of the project either they work pretty hard on it or just joking with a script kiddie designs in terms of websites, platform or even the application itself.

in other words maybe everything is very important and should be noted in ICO. so not just from the inside alone we should also be able to see feedback from the public for the success of ICO.

To avoid something that is not desirable if you want to invest in a project, advisor is certainly very important because from there we can get the main source of the project that we will invest. although advisers are a prime object to do a basic research if we want to invest in a large project. but in addition, looking more deeply at the existing team will certainly be much more important because by looking in detail the project can be an assessment and consideration of its own without being affected by others.

I think Core team is more important in case of ICO

I think if ICO has strong team advisers are not so important, but it makes sense when some experienced people are involved.

I don't think advisors is the most significant criteria, anyone can be paid to say good things, every aspect of an ICO project is important. reading through the white paper makes you know more about the ICO and whether its worth investing in. if you listen o advisors and take action based on their views then there is a high chance of failure.

it is best to look at the idea, not the faces .. well, it is desirable that the company had at least more or less well-established people who can and do want to achieve their result

Actually I don't pay any attention to advisers on any ICO because their faces are almost always unknown for me, I guess and for the rest of regular users. Maybe I will make a quick run over their working placed but that's all.

For me most important is ICO to have MVP or being close to MVP. Or the conception must be extraordinary.

When choosing a project, I draw a lot of criteria, because for me everything is important and certainly one of the main criteria is the project advisor.