Bitcoin Forum

I think some depends 100% on ico with nothing to contribute, i believe a developer needs to have at least  30% of fund needed before doing any ico, but most developer thinks wonder will happen .
To make matter worse, sometimes, even though the hard cap is mistakenly met, they will be giving excuses upon excuses .

They lack the potential to manage multi million dollar gigantic project .
They don't have have the potential and force needed to accelerate the project.
Even some of their white paper is poorly written and unprofessional.
Quite disheartening indeed

But that's not what happens.

Developers are all hoping to collect funds without anything to contribute, they may have some budget on their development start. But overall they are all passing the burden to their investors.

if they are having a lot of knowledge in the blockchain development and i guess byteball developer can be an example about how a guy without any fund can create a new system that called as DAG system. It's a new consensus system.
Basically they are thinking about the Money but i have seen some projects that didn't meet the softcap have created products. that depends on how competence the developer is.

In my opinion, some projects do not need a lot of money which they think this is the minimum (soft cap) to implement project. As I read from some ICO advisor's comments, a project does not need millions of dollars to implement. But, as we can see, almost ICOs have soft cap which is millions or even tens of millions of dollars. Maybe we can only know when we try to implement a million-dollar project.  :)

because it is all a gamble. sometimes more people participate in your "lottery game" aka ICO and you can reach the caps that you defined fast and easy and sometimes since there are so many people burnt by previous scammers you can't meet the caps and your project fails miserably.

Not all projects are like this, There are projects they have paid for themselves because they do not reach softcap, Some projects are adjusted softcap so the project can continue to operate.

If the project dies because it fails to meet soft cap, it is not worth to start with in the first place.
In RL none of these shits would ever make it with that bad  business plan and execution..

Well, the main reason is their selecting and maintaining the product isn't well planned and they don't work to make the quality high of their products. Also, they always depend on their investors without doing something productive.

this is why it is impt to review the project fundamentals properly before any contribution...those with weak attributes are likely to be weeded out by the mkt and not be worth much anyway...

Maybe not all projects are like that, because right now I know and follow projects that really work hard so that their goals are achieved, he doesn't think about selling from ico. He continues to develop his projects every day, sometimes sad and also seeing seeing projects like this, ICO sales are still far from softcap.

Soft cap is top bottom ( limit ), reach it will bring big trust and fund to keep continue the project. If can't reach it there's no reason to keep running the project, start again with new one is more realistic step. That's my opinion but I believe that's the true, keep follow new information from developer is really important.

Some fail even after hitting their hardcap. Success or failure of any project is dependent on the project teams activities, their community and utility for such project. If a project has utility and good hype it scales through.

It should be possible like that, the developer will also get a hug profit when the ICO is successful and reaches the target. But if they only rely on the capital that must be fulfilled and depends on the investor, most likely a project will just be destroyed. Developer ICO projects that have good intentions to succeed in the projects they make, I'm sure they will work hard to make the project a success, they will not just spend their energy and brain but they will spend money if needed.

Because soft cap is the minimum funds that they had calculated to be used for company operations, pay for offices, staffs, advertising, release products. Causes they are new startups, they don't have initial funds to keep the company active so they must run the token sale to raise funds from investors. If they could not meet soft cap, it is clearly that they could not continue developing their vision and product, they must stop the project, it dies.

Failure to have the softcap couldn't generate a volume for the trading funds, so the devs will declare failure of the project. Since many projects right now is not doing good or better progress, more investors were very hesitant to invest for new one. That kepts us finding more ways on how to make some projects better in order to become successful, but somehow a struggle specially on the person who handled the ICO.

Its logically, if they dont meet even soft cap project cant go forward.
Soft cap means minimal funds needed to release their product
They should refund investors and going back with fixed old problems at better times

A projects will die if they didn't reach the softcap it is important to them to raise money in the TokenSale to continue making a improvement of a project,without funds no one will work to improve the project because the team behind needs also payments for their hardworks and if a project is making a good development they needs funds to do it without funds they cannot make good improvement.

Softcap is used for the minimum cost in developing their products, I mean it is normal if a project does not reach the softcap then it will not further develop the project they make, and for all projects the most important constraints are funds. I don't really want to comment on or blame what is in the project, be it a developer, team or anything involved in handling their project.

Most ICOs nowadays don't have a strong leader nor a good development team in order to voice their idea, give the investors a proper idea for their direction they wanna take and the overall strength of the team that they can make it happen. If you're gonna leave it all up to the investors without any sign of how the progress is going it is obvious that people won't be keen on investing and help reach the cap. If these new ICOs that are actually good have a better plan of execution they can succeed in the market and not be overshadowed by these scam ICOs that are giving a bad reputation to the market.

And why spend your money when you can collect them from other people and then if nothing happens just to shrug and say-sorry did not work.

I think the softcap is the minimum amount which the company requires to start the project without wrecking, so if the minimum required amount is not raised, that can make such project to die off. the only thing is that they need to refund the investors money otherwise that should be called scam.

These projects stop because not having enough funds to reach the soft cap means there's lack of interest in the project they probably think it's not worth the effort to continue. That's how I see things when an ICO fail.

I can't say much about projects that reached the hard cap and failed to improve because I don't invest in ICOs. If you're losing hope on a project it's probably best to dump the tokens.

OP sounds like he suffered quite a loss.

Yes, you are right, I read somewhere a blog of a venture investor in which he was surprised at the large amounts of money requested by ICO, he claims that will be enough less than one million dollars for launch a project.

Though some projects do fail and disappear for this reason, not all the project follow this pattern. Some projects uniquely adjust with the soft cap problem and that helps the users to continue with the project.

Thats true and i like the idea of self investment by the developers before asking investors to join in. Some percentage should be done by the team and developers before the start of the project. But they only take it as a get-rich kind of stuff and nothing more. They usually lack any plans if they reach the hardcap and let the project free float which makes sure the project goes no where.

The soft cap is set to some amount by the ICO team.
This will support the project they are aiming.
Without the soft cap, they can't continue the project as they will be short in budget.
This is one of the biggest problems now.
ICO having lack of investors because there are so many scam ICO which affect the legit ones.

But I think those projects will disappear with the money from the investors. These projects will never return money to investors, because they have intended to scam right from the start. There are too many scams and we are wasting time with them

Because they are losing their motivation to work with the project, because they did not reach their funding goal. I can understand this, but I think there are few teams that keep developing their product, despite the fact, that the soft cap wasn't met.

Depending on project, the soft cap might be an amount that is few million dollars, not everyone has this kind of money. Some startups have the opportunity to pitch about their projects to investors and lucky to get funding, but not all.

Most of the project owner also don't prepare any fund for their project, money is coming from ICO token sale, if they can't reach minimum target ( softcap ), how to continue development project platform ? Legit project will return investment fund to investor if decided close the project, actually current situation is even if project reach hardcap also look like dead project, such as tenx, envion, play2live and etc

Wait, if the project did not collect anything, that is, he did not collect the money that should have been collected on the development of the project, then how can he continue his work? I do not understand the question. If he stops living after money? That is a common situation.

Because here inside the crypto space people only got here because they know they could get money fast enough in a short time so they probably dump those coins.

Because the softcap is the minimum of capital for their operation. If they dont reach softcap, they dont have sufficient money to deploy their project, their project will be failed.

In my opinion now a lot of projects that are made in haste, which do not have anything solid. A lot of projects that really can not normally write white paper and corny to make a good site, which will be all clear, so I'm not surprised that they do not collect even soft cap.

My thoughts exactly.. but risk is the name of the game from both sides. Even getting to that point sometimes takes millions of dollars in personal investment on behalf of the developer. The only accurate way to gauge the success is by evaluating the whitepaper, figuring out what differentiates their product from something else and whether or not that means anything, and how they're going to implement.

In the end we're responsible for our own shortcomings and need to be master-assessors to be master-investors. The digital realm is currently the wild-west but it'll eventually become civilized and even become the new norm. There is however, only one gold rush.

Some of your points are true, But for sure spending with own resources is not that easy to do that's why they are launching their own ICO in that case the chances of raising enough funds are 50/50 in some points if the ICO has created enough noise or Hype exposures the people will get interested and it will invest and buy the offering most of the time people don't read the white paper and they don't care how bad or good is it.

Sometimes the market conditions make them loose faith in the project, where they must have collected huge amount of eth and the market becomes unfavourable, that means loss in value which can reduce amount collected, and could discourage Dev in project continuity.

Basically they are thinking about the money but I have seen some projects that didn't meet the softcap have created products. That depends on how competent the developer is.It's a new consensus system.

Because moneygrab cant work without actual moneygrab.

They failed to rise the required amount of money to develop the project , therefore the project should be canceled . The problem is that the projects want to raise too much money at the initial stage, when they can not offer anything except promises written on paper to investors. You can often find how they collect millions of dollars for the work that actually costs 100 or 200 thousand. Perhaps they charge the required amount of money for listing on the top exchanges, but in any case this situation is not normal and requires serious changes.

They aren't motivated anymore when they can't meet their quota.

That's it, why would you pursue something if you already failed and you are expecting to fail because people already know what ICOs are?

Softcap is the minimum amount an ICO needs to maintain and grow. If they still can not reach the softcap, they can not grow with it. And so 100% of the projects will be abandoned or die if the softcap is not achieved

First of all, it's because of lack of money. Why they didn't get the soft cap? - because this project is not interesting to investors and they do not see it's future perspective.

The time when they do hit up their Hardcap then greediness will surely activated. ;D

I can even tell directly if someones project deserve to be a multi million dollar but most of them do failed up on that one.
Or simply they don't really deliver mostly on the things that they had promised on Post-ICO.
Those simply means that trash projects are hoping to get some foolish or newbie investors without minding to read up their WP.

Because they are after the money, if they truly believed in the project they were developing they will not need any money at all, just look at satoshi he is one of the richest people alive and it is possible he could take the position as the richest person in the world and yet he did not asked for money, he just built bitcoin and mined coins to support the network.

This is the reason why there are also projects out there that want to regulate this kind of problems. They will be a platform for ICOs that will be beneficial for investors as well. Some features like voting for fund disbursement so it's escrowed and if the project failed the invested will be returned to the contributors.

Yes, it is amazing how some of these projects think they had a chance to make it big.

If ICOs went through traditional funding (directly market to a VC, angel investor or something like that), then 90% of them would never even get off the ground.
First off, what company could ever get funding without even a product demonstration?
Yet we have so many ICOs that only have a whitepaper and not even an MVP.

Also, greediness will get you shut out so fast in the normal world
If a tiny startup with no reputable devs and no product asks for 20million in funding, people would laugh and think it's a joke.
But there are so many asking for so much.
Even hardcaps of 10million are high.

All of this is totally unstustainable.  Which, actually, is what's going on, it can't be sustained so the ICO market is crashing now.

Everyone sees how much money was in the market of ICO projects, so most developers wanted to tear off their piece, having only the idea of ​​a project available and hoped only to get easy money, instead of bringing some benefit to society with their technology.

Yes there is. But I also saw projects where the company already has half the amount for the project. Or where no funds are raised at all. Someone has a finished product. But such projects are few. Because everyone wants to minimize their personal expenses.

there are some ico that are handled by beginners, like making something to earn money but after that they leave without thinking of investors and bounty hunters, because people like that ico seem scary and the impact is that investors are reluctant to invest which makes more and ico fail and the losses are certainly It's just felt by bounty hunters like me because I didn't receive results for my work
but this time not, because I followed the right project

I noticed that trusted ICOs are ready to launch platform without raising hard cap. Usually developers calculate minimum summ for development.

Because they cannot reach the minimal investment money for their project, so they decide to cancel the project or delay the project, and it will continue if the market is waking up. But before they continue the project, maybe they will fix something that is not working properly so in the future, when they start their project, it will reach good results. Besides that, if they cancel the project, I think they can analyze the progress of their project so they can know how good enough their project to give something to the people.

soft cap is a minimum requirements for a project to start. if it did not reach soft cap then the ICO have no enough funds so it can be considered failure. a project should be good and also with good team.

If a project reach softcap usually the project can work it well, unless the developers arent serious enough to launch their project. If I were you pick a good project with working product not those ICOs that doesnt have a working product when launching an ICO. Why? You are not sure of they will really pursue the project once they have enough fund. Having 1million USD as softcap is big already to develop some product. Also, if they are good that's enough fund to list on some decent exchange. That's why I confuse with some project why they dont get listed on an exxhange right away hence they have funds for payment. Sound's fishy right? But probably there are hidden agenda with that.

If the startup funds cannot be raised, then how successful the project is. No money can be achieved without money. This is an industry that requires the integration of money and technology.

Because Bitcoin never needed an ICO to launch? Because so many good projects are out there, and none of them needed a single cent to develop something good and useful? Because they all believed in the concept of open source and contribution to society?

ICO projects mostly, for me, are incredibly useless. They pretend to develop something but actually just want the money.

Only ICOs for expansion are something I can believe in. A working product that needs money to expand.

Yes, of course the project will get stuck if it is not fulfilled for the soft cup, and the process will be stopped, if the soft cup is not fulfilled the project will float, so this is where the team's role and intense promotion are very important in the success of a project

If they do not meet the soft cap for the coins then that means that the coin is not going to be able to grow, the money that they raise from doing the ico is the money that they use to invest in the things that they can use to make sure that the coin is sustainable, things like the hardware needed to make sure that the coin runs smoothly is bought with that money

Its not hard to fake that they have reached soft cap, they just send tokens to their shillers and mark that on their website like they were sold. So even reaching soft cap doesn't mean that project is success.

Well the answer is pretty self evident. Most or at least a lot of the ICOs are simply a money grab, where the team lacks the actual passion to go forward with the development of the project. Couple of years ago teams were able to create great products with half a million of dollars, now they are complaining when they are unable to reach their 5 million soft cap. Give me a break.

There are still some project that choose to continue even if they didn't reach their soft cap.
I think they just don't want to continue knowing that they only have few supporters or they didn't reach their expected support for their project.

Of course , it all depends on the idea, but I believe that developers should conduct ICO at least with a minimum viable product. So that investors could evaluate and decide whether to invest or not. But unfortunately, most of them are willing to invest in everything, without understanding, hoping for HYIP, and devious people use it.

There are some exception project even though they couldn't reach to their softcap, they continued. Why most of them are stopping the project, because they couldn't take attention of the crypto world.

As a rule, those projects that just wanted to raise money die, all the rest find the strength and ways to continue working and find new investors. At the same time, the team may decide that their project is not as good as they originally intended.

Dependent project to the ico is reflecting competency of the prject it self, i have seen some project was not met the soft cap but it still growing because it was not depends on the ico, it really has working project outside of the ico, but also i see many projects are dead when it is not met the soft cap reflecting the dependent the project to the ico.

Well, if those projects just aim to raise money for their own benefit and they have failed to meet softcap then most likely they would just launch another project that may have have the possibility of raising more money. Softcap means that this is the amount of money that they need to start the project and if they don't have the determination to reach it then the project would fail. It is either they would just return the money invested or they would run away with the money which is a turn off for investors that's why only a few do invest in ICO projects in which there are no famous names tied to it.

I think as a project doesn't reach its minimum amount of infestation, the team think that the collected amount will not be sufficient to cover the fund needed for the development of the project. that is why that a project will be stopped.

Agree! There are ICOs that were not fully dependent on the collected funds. They are somehow funded by the affiliated companies. This is the problem with unregulated platform that anybody or any group can make their project and ICOs even without considering the team. All they think of is then profit.

Soft is the minimum standard for the overall budget of the ICO project. If it is lower than the soft development team will not be able to operate the project, it is very sad. Developers won't return any money to you.

Many companies have a smaller amount of share capital for development, and all hope for investment capital. Sometimes, therefore, the soft cover of the project is overstated, which may sometimes not be achieved, which results in closing a good project. Therefore, this is a very crucial period for both developers and ordinary investors.

The lack of team motivation. Imagine that you have set a soft cap and made a token sale, that lasted for several months. After collecting 50 percent of your cap, you refund the investors and that was it. I can understand that the projects die after that.

If a project dies because it fails to meet soft cap it means that they depended on only their investor's which isn't right . A good project must have a backup plan and funds to maintain their project even if the funds they get from investors doesn't meet their soft cap.

There are even some projects that didn't do ICO and yet they are still flourishing

If the project does not reach Softcap, there is no point in continuing to develop it even for your own savings. Investors do not believe in the idea of the project, and do not show their interest in it. So he is not viable.

ICOs are run by many people who have never been in such position before. It is absolutely normal they will make a misstep which will postpone the whole timetable. But your first question surprised me. Startups are basically nothing but an idea and a bunch of passionate developers who would like to fulfill their dreams and pockets as well. No wonder the project is dead without financial support- they had a reason not to start with their own savings ;).

In the first place once the project are potential they will meet the soft cap because many people will invest to the project. For me soft cap is really need to achieve because sometimes I invest to one project once they reach soft cap. But they have project even did not reach soft cap on time they reach hard cap.

Most ICO is fraud with the purpose of personal enrichment and without the purpose of subsequent work on the project. That is why project teams do not want to invest their own money in a deliberately stillborn project. If the soft cap is not reached, then the fraud attempt has failed.

The only thing is how all the developers do their work, because very often people just try to steal money and nothing more, but it even happens that people themselves carry their money to give to developers, this also happens

You are totally right! There are a lot of projects which team members are not professionals, they do not have an experience in any high-tech field. Therefore the quality of projects is very low and the majority will be scammed. 

The lack of motivation and I can understand it. I think almost every project died after failing an ICO. It has shown that people are not interested in their idea and it won't be useful in the future. Maybe it was the fault of the devs or marketing team but the result is the same.

Projects with insufficient start-up capital are bound to fail. Usually, the ICO's softest is the minimum budget of the development team. If the price is lower than the soft project, it will disappear. No one will be responsible for this. This phenomenon occurs in many projects. Now is not a good time to participate in ICO investment, perhaps the myth of ICO will never come back.

Many projects are doomed to fail from the start, because their purpose is simply to raise funds, they don't have any plans or products!

The project failed and was unable to reach the softcap was indeed sad, this is a lot of factors that cannot support, such as a less solid team, lack of knowledge, team cohesiveness does not exist. Unclear project objectives, less interesting ideas, it is difficult to convince investors so they fail to raise funds.

Soft cap is the minimum venture capital for launching the project. If soft cap is no raised it is obvious that project will die, costs will not be covered.

Indeed it is emerging at this time. many projects simply search results without concepts and products that are good for the future. would certainly be reasonable when many find the project failed and did not reach soft cap they are targeting. the investor will certainly be able to assess which projects well and not. When it's too bad then surely will also be reluctant to support.

Quite simply, the world is cruel, no matter how good the project and the best team, if you don't get everyone's support, you will fail. A junk project can succeed if it is favored by many people. This is reality and cannot be avoided.

I think this question is self explanatory, the aim of ICO in the first place is to raise money to fund their project, if they could already fund the project then why would they do ICO? The softcap is usually the minimum amount required to do the funding successfully so if they do not reach this amount, they usually just abandon the project because there would be no money to fund it successfully.

And it is not like the projects have gotten more complex, they just want to get rich without doing nothing but scamming dumb investors, I know that this may sound harsh but people need to learn their lesson most icos are a scam and there is not a point in investing in them, you are going to waste your time and your money and it is not a nice sensation to lose either of them.

I agree, especially if the project totally depends on raising funds via their ICO. The outcome is only one - abandon the project. Those who fortunately reached their soft cap can still continue their project but a lot of times the development is so slow giving so many reasons not to do their job.

Softcap is way of setting a fund goal by Developers. After every feasibility study on the project, they map out a particular amount of money required to develop it. It is the minimum fund required

But that's not the main reason. There are dozens of platform that didn't even raised a lot of money an still build a proper product. If the team has a lot of knowledge about that and it will so easy for them to build it.
Byteball evene created by a single developer and it doesn't need any team

Now i think many ICO just make their project is money oriented so if they can not reached softcap(they need this for ti make their project to survive) they would not to spend their money to run the project

I think why projects gets die when they didn't meet their soft cap is that, the initial fund require for the project to operate is not met. Resulting to a shortage of production required for the implementation of the project.