Bitcoin Forum

 ;)   :o In crypto world there are many peoplo who are lauching ICOs, but many of us dont know how difficult its, maybe because in the pass we look at for ICO trash o fraud, however there are many projects which have o are thinking in good purpose, it depends how do you look. And we need to remember that there a team who are pushing a project, I think the best way to verify if its good or no is whitepaper, or what do you think?? 8) ???

in my opinion, the whitepaper cannot always be used as the main reference because basically all investors need real evidence, then according to the roadmap they make. The most important thing is to be on time according to what they promised. You can conclude for yourself what if a project is not on time, there will be many problems that cause their projects to stop or fail.

The difficulties after altcoins launching in the market was it's price that declines, after those bounty hunters who sold their coins at cheaper value. We had no assurance that our new coins showing up in the marker will gain a higher profitable price, due to those reasons behind. We find it difficult at certain times, the situation always remaind the same and we can't see any good pumps happening.

Not many people have the time to focus first on whitepaper. I think it is best to first test the authenticity of the project by researching on the team. Confirm if the are real or not. After which you can now proceed on other aspects.
The team of a project can determine if a project will succeed or not.
Other things that need to looked into are a vast community, communication between the community and the team, the website, the whitepaper, the usecase. Then every project that has the tendency to succeed must have MVP.

There are very well concealed fraudsters in the market. Personally, I'm looking at the team after I like the content of the project. I check if one of the team members is working on other projects before I invest. If I have worked on another project and that project is still active, I will contact that team member. I'm investing only after receiving information from the team member himself.

Whitepaper can't be considered as a good measure to define how good the ico. Remember a lot of professional writers have been offering this service. The only important thing based on the experience and history of the developer itself. Remember if that was a popular person and then you will be so easy to find a lot of reviews about him dude.

Of course, reading whitepaper is one of the important criteria when choosing an ICO. But in my opinion it is better to first study the project team and then do the rest of the analysis of the project.

Whether an ICO project can be successful or not, whether the tokens it issues can add value, the focus is on what the team is doing, and it needs a lot of reliable work to promote the development of the project.

I agree with you but i think the work of the project team cannot be fully appreciated unless they come out successful at the end of the day. People have high expectations and anyone who wants to launch an ico must be ready to give an answer to these high expectations

No, not the whitepaper is the best way to determine if the project is good.

You probably didn't heard that there are popular coins now that copied their whitepaper and the noise wasn't so loud because they did something like paying the media for not covering that issue. I'm not giving a name of what that coin is but I think many are aware of that.

A whitepaper may look dreamy and out of the world, but you can't just rely on this one aspect for investment.
A good project, development team and marketing team are equally important. How the project is supported and queries answered is also a great deal to build in trust and attract investors.

Besides all the technicalities it is also a gut feeling for me in the end. It is also a gamble as you do not know how the project will evolve. I do notice less 'doing it for the money' start-ups, or maybe it is because it is now easier to find the rotten apples.

Well, no one is saying there are no projects out there that can end up doing well in the long run, but one thing for sure is that as long as you know what to always look out for when it comes to a project, you will always be in the right mind to make decisions when it comes to such.

We all know the best way to always identify a good project is to try as much as possible to make sure you check out the team, the product and the business they are bringing to the table. However, all these things don't usually mean that it all will just end up making giving you some huge profit immediately and some won't, but like someone said, investing in ICOs is more or less an educated gambling.

These times, whitepapers don't prove to be a good source to know scamming icos or not. The whitepaper might paint everything sweet but the team might still run off with money. I think the usage of the project is better but everything is still depending.

there are a lot of ico with great and promising whitepapers, but when the platform is launched everything isn't as expected and sometimes the developer doesn't do or provide the latest updates, so the project doesn't develop. so the only ones left are pump and dump to continue to maintain their projects.

Often, as the project develops, the road map changes. And I think this is normal. As you progress and work, you begin to understand what is more important and right now to do. Therefore, goals can change. The most important thing is that the team does not stand still, but do something and move forward.

Knowing if ICO is good or not is difficult this days because most of the materials to be consulted cannot be trusted a hundred percent because of lack of professionalism, most whitepapers are plagiarized which means the team lack ability and capability to implement it and some ICO review sites are devoid of professionalism because some of them receive payment for their job. What I recommend is to do background check for the team, checking them up on LinkedIn does help to verify their identity and finding information about their business antecedent and lastly what product do they have or they're developing or planning to develop either it's feasible or not

The best way to verify the project is its team and the whitepaper. I also usually look at the rating websites and community numbers. An ICO cannot reach a cap of 15 million USD, if they have 1000 followers in Telegram.

Fraudsters or people running an ICO's nowadays which has the intention to scam people is also knowledgeable, their whitepaper has also been improved, now the best thing we can do now, is not to invest if its not yet listed in exchanges, i know not all, but a high percentage of ICO nowadays has the same feathers. Ive been a victim too.

whitepaper of a project is only meant as an abstract introduction of that project. it is not capable of telling you whether the project itself is good or bad. you may find out whether the project has a good idea in it or not but the implementation of an idea is more important and most coins fail in that.

for example the idea behind Ethereum as a platform is awesome. that is why it gained a huge popularity in first place but the implementation of that cool idea has been terrible and that is why it is failing.

To me, whitepaper is just basically there to understand more about the project and its business solutions, and trust me, whitepaper can be boring.

Now, considering the fact that whitepapers are easily cloned these days, I really would not want to bother myself too much when it comes to picking the whitepaper first. What is most important is that this project I want to read about, how legitimate is it? This is where the scrutinizing of the team as well as availability of minimum viable product comes in. With these ones, you will know if a project is worth digging in further into or not.

I agree with you, but it would be better if there is an institution that selects the ico-ico, because often I see there are good ico that don't get a place while fake ico or ico scam take the chance that good ico doesn't get, the institution can also filter so that no more ico scams are circulating

A whitepaper remains a fancy document with ideas and solutions, but the actual implementation of those concepts is in the product. It's enough to conclude an ICO is good just by reading the whitepaper alone, even though it's equally essential. There are professional whitepaper writers out there now and their job is to make the document very attractive and worded appropriately. A lot of other parameters need to be evaluated by concluding the project is worth giving a shot

overall I always check and make research for research, after that I separate it from a few ico that I have done before. and lastly I did. analyzing is the thing that most investors must do and not to be affected by the white paper, we must still use healthy logic.

My guess is that transparency is the key. And public figures.

Public ledger with all the funds, in and out, clearly stated where everything went. Clearly stated persons in the project, persons willing to also write that in the facebook/linkedin/whatever profiles. Adding some known credible figures to the team helps. Brainstorming/scrum meetings recorded/available as possible. The code, if possible, available too (GitHub or other).
It won't hurt to have at least some steps of the project done (and recorded in a way or another).
Recordings with offices, people working on your project.

Some of these can be available for everybody as teasers, some can be available only for the ones that actually acquired your tokens.


There are a lot of things that can be shown. Of course, very few will check them out, but they'll add more credibility to the project.
Every missing thing can create a conspiracy theory.
Yes, I know, this means overhead and it means the competition may find out things you didn't want to show. It's a balance you have to find.


But I think that the best 2 things for a good ICO are the public figures and the transparency.
Good idea, whitepaper and so on are also a must, but even the scam projects give the impression they have that.

A Whitepaper is only meant is to provide you an insight and better understanding about a project and how it works.

"A white paper is an authoritative report or guide that informs readers concisely about a complex issue and presents the issuing body's philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper"

A Whitepaper is only relevant if the project isn't an outright scam to begin with, because any project could hire someone or firm to design its whitepaper and get a perfect one, So don't be surprised if a scam project has a very concise and detailed whitepaper. However, an experienced Investor might be able figure out if there are some discrepancies in the whitepaper.
Whitepaper might be one of the ways to find out but, cannot be solely relied upon to know if a project is legitimate or just a scam.

Excuse me, there are more people who know ethereum difficulties at this moment and just few who doesn't care of its decline. Actually, it is too long struggle of price to get back on track again. In order to determine altcoins if potential should have complete information in whitepaper, in website and the roadmap is good enough. Ethereum is the common alt that basis of more ICO due to its popularity and profitable advantage.

Whitepaper mainly is providing something like idea behind the whole project. You need to connect few sources to have a good analytics base how good is the project. These sources might be - whitepaper, linkedin of the team, reddit or subreddit of the project, ann thread and opinions other users about this.