Bitcoin Forum

Do you trust more and ICO if they present a Minimum Product even if it has bugs? Do you look a the code repository before investing or you just look at ratings? You should not invest blindly!

MVP is important, cause that is part of the evidence of the project.. In my opinion, MVP aims to simulate how use and how project work for the future development (although many bugs in there).. In addition, MVP can also provide confidence in the investor candidate..

So, if you're investor, what will you choose if you have a money. Give to someone who has a store but does not have any goods for sell or someone who has a skill but do not have the enthusiast.

Careful of entrusting your money to a project you invest..

MVP is as a test-product to show their idea. And I think if there are a little bugs, it will be not a big problem. As I see, almost ICO reviewers and investors ask for MVP. I'm not an investor but I still appreciate the project has MVP.

I agree with the creator of the topic, now there are really a lot of fraudulent projects and it is very difficult to choose a good one. I have been investing in various projects for about a year and a half and I have formed requirements for them.
1. At preICO, the team must have a contract for automatic transfer of funds with prescribed conditions for early investors - not handles as many do, namely written in a smart contract - otherwise the funds raised may simply enrich the founders or conditions will change during the play - lots of cases.
2. A contract for preICO should be part of a large contract for ICO - not with different coins - it is not safe in terms of vulnerabilities and defrauding.
3. The contract for preICO and then ICO must have a lower and upper barrier - if the team does not have it, it does not know what it wants, just scam.
4. The contract for ICO must have escrow funds received as a result of the placement - this can be a frieze or multisig with the condition of voting. This will give you a guarantee against using up funds earlier than the team completed the previous stage.
5. The contract must be spelled out an unconditional refund in case of not reaching the lower limit of the pool. It is in the contract and not in the white paper if this is not the case - a scam.
6. All contracts must be posted on GithHub. This will allow third-party developers to check the contract for vulnerabilities if the team did not take care and before the ICO did not put a bounty on the vulnerabilities.
7. The contract must contain the conditions for the team and for the bounty.
8. The contract must specify the conditions for not sold tokens - with clearly defined terms.
9. The project must have partnership agreements with large corporations or foundations.
10. On the official website of the project should be specified contact information to team members. It is desirable accounts in social networks.
11. Someone of their team members should actively communicate in the official telegram channel of the project
Here are a few of my requirements. If you have something to add, then I will be very happy!

Investing in ICO is like gambling, you must be smart to read assess and decide, see the details of their project being the main point in investing, see through their entire whiteaper.

I think it is very obvious. If you don't have an MVP, then that simply means you haven't tried and tested your ideas. It also means you aren't committed enough. If you were, you would take some loan or use your savings and see if idea is even feasible on small scale first. You just have a theory and on the basis of that you shouldn't/can't raise money. At least that's how it works in traditional fundraising. This MVPless funding worked last year but investors are very cautious now. You don't have an MVP, you don't get funds.

The projects has MVP are certainly good projects and will be of interest to many investors. If the MVP is faulty, it's like you said it will soon be improved and repaired, they are just in the beginning process so it takes a lot of development time so that the product can be used smoothly

It's still MVP and i think that's fine if that still has a bug and it can be solved soon. i will try to look at the how active the deveopers through use the code repository as a basic representation.
Remember it's a bad thing to publish all of the codes consider there was a alot of possibility that being stolen to create another clone.

developers should work on their product before releasing the product beta because if it will have bugs then investors may not believe in the project with the product which have bugs in it offcourse these bugs can be solved later but it will raise questions on the devs

If I meet a good project of MVP. I will invest. Because this means that the project is being developed. The code will be updated. Although it will have BUG. But this represents an attitude towards projects. So if there are no problems in every aspect of the project, I will consider investment.

Of course, I think if ICO has mvp, they will seriously work later. As for me, I don't invest in project without softcap and mvp. I think it's basic rules for every investor. You should follow them.

Now I don't invest in projects at the stage of ICO, because it is much more profitable to buy on the exchange in the current market. I don't buy assets for the purpose of short-term speculation, but for long-term holding and always look to the project followed the plan set out in the road map. I believe that to go to ICO without any "draft" of the future product, so you could show anything to investors-is very frivolous.

It is a must for every project to have at least an MVP, because without any sign of a working product, you are just investing in an idea and as far as I know, only a small percentage of projects are successful if they only have a whitepaper.

I always look into an MVP of a project even if it is not fully working or involves bugs. The MVP shows that a team invested a significant amount of time in product design and thinking about features and functionality. I personally assume that a project with an MVP is less likely to be a scam.

Yes, I do trust more ICOs with a live MVP although I prefer if its not buggy. ICOs should make it a standard to have a live MVP before starting a token sale.

I am not that technical so I do not do it personally. I ask some friends who knows how.

Ratings are good but I do not rely on them.

MVP is an important factor when choosing a project to invest in or participate in a campaign bounty, as this proves the seriousness of the project and its well-planned work. But in any case, we always need to carefully review and study projects, as fraudsters can fake even the product MVP.

MVP is very important in every project.
It will gain more trust from the people and their possible investors.
Though, that is not the only reason to have the project. we should look more in different corner of an ICO.

Having an MVP is a good thing but it really doesn't guarantee project success but I think it will help collecting millions for the ICO funds. Seen some ICO succeed because of it. I have no idea how easy it is though about MVP's being in the google play, if its easy to get a product up on googleplay then this can be used by ICO scammers.

I prefer ico who has a product, because if the product is in demand then the value of the coin from ico will go up but that also guarantees nothing because there are some who do not succeed in not even realizing the concept, the point is that the concept does not guarantee, we also assess the team behind ico and in my opinion the rank also needs to see but don't fully believe, I mean we still have to use our personal judgment about the ico

I always look for a working product before investing in it. But of course, it must have good and genuine ratings from legitimate experts.

A minimum viable product (MVP) allows developers to demonstrate that their products have the minimum technical characteristics of functionality. It is what makes investors invest today.
I think the community should demand that projects now have an MVP. If we want to avoid Scam ICOs although it is not a guarantee at least we advance to the good development of our crypto world.

I would preferred to have at least an MVP and much better if they have already a working product. The likes of MyCryptoBank, EOSex and Muusic.FM they have one thing in common they have a working product. If you gonna invest in some ICO's better choose the one who with real working product and developers with experienced in that industry.

It is definitely better, if they already have the MVP before conducting ICO, but I have seen many projects having MVP and not reaching the softcap or their token crashed. I think it really comes down to the team. If the team is experienced, then they have a good chance in succeeding.

I don't think all that much of projects that release buggy MVP's just so they have something to show potential investors. I do check Github repositories to see what sort of work they have been doing on the project. It is my experience that projects that start building before asking for money are the ones that actually continue building after they get money.

I still support it though it has seen many bugs because it will surely be fixed. Compared to those projects that is boasting that they have a good project with great features, but still don't have any Mvp, surely I don't invest in just saying that its good, its better to see it.

We should not trust any rating sites because they may work for money. If we really need investment, then we should rely on increasing knowledge and communicating with other traders to draw conclusions!

MVP is a big + if you are going to invest into a project. do you like investing into a project that only has Whitepaper to present its costumer / investor? there is no guarantee that your investment is going to be worth it

It's still MVP and that i suppose that is fine if that also includes a bug and it will be solved  presently. i will be able to try and inspect the however active the deveopers through use the code repository as a basic illustration.
Remember it is a dangerous issue to publish all of the codes contemplate there was a alot of chance that being taken to make another clone.

If a project does not have a product, it is just a simple research. Imagine, even a thesis has product. ICO's that has MVP are those who succeed more. That is the real fact in crypto industry. If you want a 70% assurance to your investment, you need to look for MVP than whitepaper. Ratings are just an added tools for the beauties of the project, it can be bought by developers.

 If the project has an MVP, this means that you can begin to explore the project in more detail. The MVP is only one of the criteria for ICO selection.

Well it has no product than I wouldn't care about it too much, it doesn't have to have the product ready but at least some sort of proof that they can do what they are promising. I mean at least give us something to look at to know what type of thing you are doing. Would you invest into a house that is not built without even seeing a picture of what it will be like? I mean when buying a house is it too much to ask for a picture of what it will be like? I am not even talking about a model, just a picture.

Same thing here, if you want us to trust you and give you our money than even if the house is not there at least give us the picture of what we will have when its all funded. MVP is obviously a plus point but a bare minimum would be more than enough to know if I want to invest in it or not.

MVP ready during ICO is good sign for that project, and it is a proof that the developer make their job. In my personal review about ICO, I make it one of the highest signal for the best ICO.

Not much care for that because most of the project right now has still no mvp due to their lack of funds. That is why they intended to launch a tokensale to fund their project. But for those projects that already has an mvp, it will be a good advantage to them. Since they already have a working product, and they can attract more potential investors.

I would say its needed for an ICO to be trusted, they should show an MVP before they proceed to the next implementation that they want to do.

---

That's right, everyone should not invest blindly because its about your money.

I think an ico with a project that already has MVP will have added value, especially the issue of trust as one of the many requirements in consideration of investment. MVP is one proof that developers are working on something related to their project, even though it still has bugs and shortcomings. With these bugs, we can interact with the developers of the team, and we can see and assess the extent of their response and how it develops after that.

Checking the repository code is one of the considerations before investing while the rating should be an option. But remember, MVP is not a guarantee that a project will be successful and can also turn into a scam.
Always be smart and do deep research before investing.

it's true, MVP is not enough to be used as a benchmark to provide a sound decision in investing, but if the MVP is supported by several facts that allow the project to be related to the potential to become big, what is wrong with investing?

For me, even an mvp is not enough, there needs to be a beta product that I can actually test and use.
From what I've seen, an MVP is basically meaningless.
I have seen companies call a website an MVP or a couple of entries on github and mvp.
In all cases, there was nothing that could actually be seen or tested.
That is basically the same as not having a product at all, and I will never invest in something unless it can get to market.

For the tech footprint, I have relied on my network to help me out.
Since I don't have much tech knowledge, I pass on the info to my techie friends and they have a go at it.
I trust their judgement and it is very easy for them to spot something that has terrible tech.
In return, they come to me with help with contact in Asia and especially the chinese market.

Of course, a project with MVP is more reliable than a project with nothing, MVP is an important criterion, but certainly no one is blind to invest in a project with just one criterion. . Criteria such as team, concept, partner, etc. are also important