Bitcoin Forum

 Mostly I judge them by the team,  come on check this forum and see a lot of icos company looking for partners to work for free for them in order to collect a coin which the future is not even certain. If you don't have money to pay a developer,  whitepaper writer etc. How on earth will you f*cking get money for promotion.   ??? ???

bitcoin and ethereum where started without a single dime,

satoshi didn't spend a cent to get bitcoin build.

and billionaires making their own icos, will not be very popular, because that would be successful icos according to your logic

A shitty ICO is one that posts in this section.

If the CEO can't be bothered to read the one sticky, they are probably going to suck at other details as well...  :/

And who told you ethereum never spent a dime? Huh. How did you get to know about ethereum to invest in it?
Bitcoin owner didn't spent a dime because others did,  men like bitcoin Jesus,  Andreas anotopolous and the likes.
ceos of ico don't wanna spend a dime, but want a lot of partners and then later scam people.

then your perfect ico is obviously ripple, that has been founded by the same people that are sitting in the federal reserve and are printing US dollar all day and scamming the entire world with it.

good luck investing in ripple

all icos that have a lot of money are basically old rich elite, trying to recolor themselves, so its a bad sign if an ico spends a lot of money. as they are just Banks 2.0.

if you support icos that spend a lot of money to establish themselves then you basically also continue just with the current establishment

Money is indeed everything but there are circumstances that a project owner didnt need out their own money from their pockets for promotion.It sounds dumb but
ive seen there are people who do works out for a particular purpose which they do know it might like a gamble but those are just personal discretion.
Why would worry too much? unless if you do have plan to promote on your own  ;D

Of course, the idea of the project is the most important of all, there are such projects where the idea is simply ridiculous and it is immediately clear that they have no future so you need to pay attention

You can find out if the ico was shitty or like a scam one when you try to filter out the teams, especially finding out their real identities. When you find out irregularities on the ico project, while reading out the whitepaper. And when they are just talk without prior working product.

There are many things you can check.
1. The team behind the ico
2. The advisors
3. See if they have a working product already
4. Their roadmap

When you tried out to check reputation or investigation section you will find that most busted scam projects do mostly uncovered by seeing or checking their teams true identity yet there have been lots using others faces and some comes to a point to use up some photoshop ones and using different names and with these things you can spot it out directly.

A shitty ICO is one without a clear goal or roadmap. But even a shitty ICO can get very successful if the community would greatly support it. For instance, a shitty ICO that is too cheap (in terms of price) and gets listed in CMC is a very enticing shitty ICO lol.

if I personally, there are several criteria for me to say that the ICO is shitty, that is :
1. the ICO date is not in accordance with what was written, because the ICO gets a lot of investors so that he submits and increases ICO time.
2. the bonus given by ICO does not make sense, which is more than 60%, some even have bonuses that can reach 100% - 200%.
3. never update the latest information, such as the number of tokens that have been sold during the ICO and the progress of the project.

the team's background is not known with certainty, even they take the identity of others to be displayed on the website, WP and all supporting device documents in the ICO project.
allocation of tokens that don't make sense, and many other things that can be used as analytical material

One of my ways, is fake team members or not enough information to verify the claims of the team members. Also over promise what you know may not be possible with their hardcap.

Not just the team, there are many loopholes when it comes to bad ICOs or even scam ones.
First foremost thing is the whitepaper, I have seen a lot many projects whitepaper which are not written professionally. Many do not include any technical part in the whitepaper.
Another thing is the authenticity of teams and partnerships. If they are faking any partnerships and there is no written proof of it, then its a scam.

Can be examined by checking the background of the project team or identity data.
Then the goal of the project. And the saddest when you do a question, but does not get a response from the manager. Then forget it!

In some cases it is obvious, team is not defined or is suspicious, idea is copied, roadmap is not well defined and is not detailed, whitepaper is very general. I al looking also at www.icoguide.com rates, if the rate is low it is also sign, as they have very realistic rates.

It is not that easy to spot scam ICOs, as they have also been using a lot of money for advertising and promotion. Initially, they are using some money to promote their project and later on when they collect some funds from investors then they simply run away with that.

If me i will look on their website, whitepaper, etc that they have. But if people in here bullied some project, it means that project is bad. We must know bully and fud is different in here, and we will know what different between both of it.

Look at their social media and threads here if they are active, look at team, look at road map how detailed it is. These are the features which should be taken into consideration at first sight.

A shitty ICO could be identified by looking into many aspects such as team identity and support, whitepaper, roadmap etcitra.
A promising ICO may turn into scam later if they don't get sufficient contribution from people and such coin come with less than $0.01 in market

Is hard to know mate we just have to be careful and study well the whitepaper and the team if they have product is also a criteria look into all this.

There are just to many things to list that can make an ICO shitty. Instead I will give you a list of the necessary ingredients for a successful ICO.
1) A management team with direct experience in the industry they intend to disrupt as well as blockchain experience.
2) A project that can only be done through the use of the blockchain.
3) It solve a problem within a large market and the problem is significant enough that people will pay to solve it.
4) No more than a 10% discount to early investors and if a bigger discount is made it includes a lock up period.

Projects of scammers can be seen immediately, on the team, on a bad site, on the idea that either already exists , or it is invented just to be , usually when you view such a project, you can immediately understand the falseness.

ALL of them -

POW is the only way to start a trustless CC

Perhaps ones that have been around for many years and still going strong could be safe

This to me isn't sufficient reason to conclude an ICO is shitty. Mind you, not every project that will be rich prior to coming into the space. The whole essence of running an ICO is essentially to raise funds for the continued development of the project. So if a project chooses to pay developers, and promotion with it's token, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Just to add to this. For me I think a good ICO should have a ANN thread on Bitcointalk and a subReddit page. This is where they get critiqued and queried real hard and the professionals will ask the team pertinent questions about the project. An ICO without these will look shady to me.

I will usually look at the business model, roadmap and team. The business model must be disruptive, roadmap must be reasonable to meet goals and the team must be genuine. 

Yeah, I always look at the team first before get to do research on any other things of the ICO. But I think your other opinion about how Company pay their team is totally wrong. Just so you know that before any developer, writer, designer, or any other professional decided to join a project and paid with the projects coin/token they will always do research on the projects, trust no one wants to work for free. And if you never join a projects, most of the time the projects founder will give an option to each of the team member whether they want to be paid full in token, or paid half in token and half in ETH/BTC/Stellar/EOS/NEO or any high tier crypto. So it is their choice to be paid in token.

It is not just buy the money spent or not spent on the ICO. Some ICOs might spend money for marketing and yet still turn out to be scam. I have seen desperate ICO CEOs spend so much on marketing and at the end ran away with investors money.

You already mentioned part of the criteria needed to determine a good ICO, which is the team. One thing about me is, if i do not trust your team, then i won't invest.

If the project does not have MVP and he didn’t raised some money on pre-sales, then it will be a crappy ICO.

The first thing i do to look for an ICO would be to check on the concept of the project itself, and also the team validity and last but not least would be to look for an ESCROW of the project that can be used as guarantee that the project is real.

Shitty ICO is usually using fake identity to running the project, thats why we should check right the team, they will gone later

When examining ICO projects, I also draw in the way the development team looks like. If the photos are blurred, if I do not see real people in the video, if I can not talk to the developers online, then I do not consider such a  ICO project for investment and do not advise anyone.

To avoid an ICO fraudulent project, I also look at the faces of the project developers. If the photos are not clear and there are no real photos of these people and if I, as an investor, cannot get an answer to my question to the developers during the day, then this is a poorly organized crappy project.

Now I just follow my intuition cause any analysis doesn't help any more, scammers have learnt to pretend really well, they write white papers, hire advisors and now you can't just identify shit coin logically.

when choosing an ico, I pay attention to the composition of the team (preferably Japan or China), a technical document (it must be correctly written, without contradictions), the duration of the ico (if it is constantly extended, then the product is not practical), the evaluation of the advisors, and read the reviews of bounty hunters)))

There is no way to be sure, but you can examine everything about it-the roadmap, the whitepaper, the team, the website.

Make sure their project is actually contributing to a worthy cause and has a future. Easier said than done. Gut feeling is also not something to be underestimated.

This is a very complicated issue and cannot communicate with you in detail. You can't understand it. For example, an investment in the ICO of the cryptocurrency market is equal to a company that has invested in a developer team. Then you have to know what kind of company you will invest in. This is very similar to your own business. Perhaps market economics is needed here.