Bitcoin Forum

Does the amount of money raised in an ico determine the success of the project??

Is a necessity to do a fund raiser in order to start up a project??

Did satoshi nakamoto and vitalik also started a fund raised??

This is not the case. I think that most ICO projects this year are raising money to make project developers rich, rather than better developing high-tech crypto and products.

Yes definitely!

Why would a project need to create an ICO? its for fund raising so that's why it needs to raise money.

Not all, there are start up projects that are standing on their own and proceeds the plan that they have through step by step.

ETH does, bitcoin no.

I'll only answer Q1 because the other two have been answered perfectly well enough.

I think it can be used as a determinant but it can go both ways. In theory only the most promising projects will raise a lot of money because they'll have the most interest. But it can lead to complacency on the part of the developers as they're already set for life with the amount of money they raised. Personally I don't believe that the majority of projects need anything more than a few million to be developed and worked upon. BTC is an example that a great project doesn't need millions of funding. Even ETH had very limited funding. Other projects today like EOS raised hundreds of millions of dollars and it all just seems unnecessary to me.

- Not necessarily, unless the project answers all future needs.
-Of course, because the fundraising process also concerns the popularity of coins
-Vitalik and Sathosi Nakamoto are already rich, I don't think they need to raise funds, and they are the founders of Crypto

right, the success of the project is indeed seen from the funds that have been collected, but there is one more factor that is the success of each project, namely a strong and big support team through a good community.

I think the amount of funds raised does not objectively reflect the success of the project, but it very well determines the success of the marketing company! ;D

Logically, you should understand that the more money ISO will collect the better marketing in the project, or rather part of the money will be spent on content promotion and events. Also, the more money the faster the project implements the idea !

fundraising is needed because through the fund raised can be made further development of the project, and usually fundraising is done through promotion and project introduction to investors.

no doesnot necessarily means success of an ico ,many icos reached the hardcap and failed but ti succeed you need to raise at least the softcap

In some way but not all the time. I see in the recent ICO even they accumulated their target, they can't seem to get the ICO price. If that's how you define success. But in the mere fact that they get their ICO target means success. It's a different story if they produce what their promised.

No unless you have a fund of your own.


I think eth does.

Op it's a big giant gamble with no certain chance of success .The only thing is read thru T &C  .read reviews and ask a lot question. Especially how to withdraw from that ico if things turn South plus the background of personal

I am more attracted on ICO that has a ready platform and project to start with than having a plan to set up, it is not actually necessary to start a fundraiser to start a project, and Vitalik is the one that started it all, because of the success of Ethereum we already have thousands of ICO's and more coming up.

I think the amount of raised fund is just showing the success of marketing and the skills of negotiation to attract and build the trust to investors. And the success of project after ICO is depended on the dev team.

Fundrasing is necessary. Of course, if they don't have their initial fund or sponsorships. And with the projects that need the infrastructures, how to implement if they don't have money?

Bitcoin and Ethereum are almost built by coding and thinking. I think these don't need too much money.

The amount raised by the ICO can play an important role in the project. Of course, the project must be real, otherwise the funds raised will only disappear.

Although I know that raising funds can help the development of the project, I don't think the project needs to rely entirely on ICO's fundraising.

It is different for every project. Some industries and projects require lots of investment to reach for example critical mass of their users. The most difficult thing is to wisely plan spending of crowdfunded money.

I believe that the funds raised at the ISO stage should be frozen and given in parts to the project team only after they have fulfilled the promise in the roadmap. If the team does not do anything, then the money should be returned to investors.
Now projects attract huge money, but after a while their project cannot show progress.

Personally, I think that big money collections determine the success of an ICO. As with the collected money, they can quickly develop their project and product.

I am not sure about satoshi raising funds but actually bitcoin did had a whitepaper and plan in the beginning so may be they had raised the funds by selling btc online while if i remeber correctly eth did raised funds before the development and during ico it was sold for around 70 cents per eth. I think raising funds is the basic requirement for each startup and their is no harm in investing in these projects if they are legit and serious with innovative products and solutions.

in my opinion yes the more money collected, the more opportunities that can be achieved, but sometimes it is also wrong if done by a bad team and an unclear roadmap.

Absulotely yes, project with high amount of ico raised is mostly is a successful project because we all known that with high fund, project can support it self road to success, i dont think that satoshi nakamoto do a fund raised, but vitalik does base on my research hehe.

The more funds collected in a project, the greater the success of the project will be. When more funds are collected, it will make it easier for the project team to realize and implement the project they have. There are many references, funding needs are usually used to support various programs. and for projects that do not reach the target fund, they will usually have difficulty implementing the project they have.

one on one,

Yes. The project have an estimate of fund raised and things they'll utilize it for. A less funded project would struggle from completing tasks and can't achieve the desired scale.

Yes. Startup projects are the projects that starts up with scratch. Unlike an established company, a startup would require a fund raising whether in be from an individual, private raising, getting funded by a company for stakes or a crowd funding.

Don't know and Yes. It was experimental in case of Satoshi, and as we don't know who that really is, we also don't know whether he was funded by someone in his project. Vitalik's Ethereum on the other hand was one among the early fund raising crypto.

we know thinking like that.

all projects based on the blockchain will have to ICOs but it’s there crowdfunding public or private, depending on management of the developer. it’s the same thing as ICOs and IPOs have fundraising.

difference is whether the project was good or not, and some MVP support to an implementation of project each.

Passwordnow already answered all questions. No need to keep on repeating your answers guys. Anyway, I didnt know ETH used fund raising. I blame myself for not getting involve into cryptocurrency back then. I would have been filthy rich!

If those project has good application to the community then many investors will put money on those ICO but the success will depends on the works of the developers. Many ICO that hit their hardcap but not performing well on their prices on the exchanges it's because some dev have failed to anticipate those market volatility and competition. This is the reason that a good and competent team can make a project successful as more investors will support them on their projects.

by itself, the more the project will raise funds, the more successful it will be and without it projects would hardly exist at all ico

of course the amount of money in the ICO determines the success of the project. therefore the ICO was made to get an injection of funds so that the project can be developed and succeeded.

not all, because there are also projects that are able to stand alone in carrying out their projects.

if that is why I don't really understand

1- No, of course not, 90% of projects are asking for more than they gonna use anyway, you will see projects that can be done with literally minimum amount of money and yet they are trying to raise $20million dollars +, I can give you endless examples of this. Most ICOs are asking for way much more than the project is really needs and only a few ICOs are asking for a realistic amount. I can also give you examples of some projects, we are all aware of that raised millions of dollars and where they are now!

2- Nope.

3- It is public information you can just google it.

No actually the raised money from the ICO not determine the success of the project, management of the raised fund that determine the success. If they spend more money for marketing and less for development they only success for short term...

To launch a quality project, of course, investments are needed. But projects that work without large investments reach good heights. Since the developers are doing my project on the enthusiasm.

I'll give you an example. Why large investments do not lead to success. The NELUN project is a cryptocurrency bank. They collected $ 136 Million but we will not see the product because it is fraudulent...

the amount of funds collected from the project determines the current ICO project, plus the ICO focal point in certain projects, such as banking, this is very different from Bitcoin triggered by nakamoto, bitcoin does not focus on one particular field, but bitcoin is made in cyberspace . so Nakamoto doesn't have to raise funds.

I think investment in ICO is one of the most controversial types of investment. You pay money for something not yet ready, and it is not known whether it will work as it should.

It is not complete but is one of the factors that makes investors assess whether it is a worthy project for them to invest. For example, an ICO with a hard cap proves to be a good project that many people care about

Of course that greatly affects the success of the ICO.
I think there is no ICO that does not do fundraising.
Of course both must have big investors.

I think that it is very important, it shows how many people believe in the project, how the big project it is and many more. So I think that yes, projects that collect more money are more successful.

You can lose money when choosing shitcoin, as well as ICO. There is no safe investment in crypto currency, you need high courage and a high level of trust, but if you don't have that, then this place is not in accordance with the concept of your life.

Naturally, the more promising the project is, the more money they are willing to invest in it and the more investment it collects in fact. I think that there is no point in explaining why.

No, Satoshi did not conduct any fundraising. Then bitcoin was an interesting thing for geeks (today they have become billionaires, lol). ETH has carried out the first of its kind ICO, but then ... ETH is really a worthwhile project, which cannot be said of thousands of others from 2017.

The amount of funds collected affects the success of the project, as if the funds are not enough, the work will be extremely difficult to do.

Of course, but it only partially decides.
Some projects seem to have called for quite a bit of capital but they have not succeeded.

I know Vitalik, he's doing that. And Satoshi, I didn't even know him, he was too mysterious.

Thus indeed the purpose of ICO is indeed the Fund raising and this is an important factor in the success of the project. When it does not have a defined target appropriate then certainly be bad for the ICO. ICO will be many fundraising does not fail because as expected because investors are not keen on ICO that any course.

No, the amount of money raised in the ICO doesn't determine the projects success. Most of the ICOs exceeds their soft market cap and sometimes hit their hard cap however most of them ended up as a shitcoin/worthless coin you can determine the success of the project based on its use according to my opinion.

It's not necessary to do a fund raise or ICO but some small companies or group can't complete the project with just a limited funds and so they will offer it to the community in order to allocate some funds in order to continue the project and when it stops the project the company is obligated to return what the investors invest.

Satoshi Nakamoto didn't do a ICO for what I've known.

yes it is, the more they collected mean more investor was trusted with their project, and mean their project were good one.

Try thinking about startup projects, they always have venture capitalists if their initiatives convince investors. And when the project is successful, that amount of venture capital will increase many times

Well, its a good Idea to do a fund raising in order to start up a project to achieve its goal. If someone can lead to raise a fund then it could be success. It also depends on the participant if they were willing to join or not. The success of it is depending on how people see it and what  its benefited. The target of raising fund is the investors and I think they will also benefited once they invest in an ICO project.

Vitalik is the one that started it all, so we can thank him if you made a profit either from investing or doing bounty campaign, yes it's necessary to do a fundraiser if you are trying to set up something big and huge and will contribute to the betterment and development of cryptocurrency

Yes, these funds are used to realize planned development plans in the roadmap. If the funds collected are not enough, the project development will also be delayed. So the developer determines the softcap and hardcap in each sale as a fundraising measure.

Without doubts that the success of an ICO passes through how much it can capture, however the funding is not only from the ICO, but also from private contributions and funds raised in agreements with other companies and investors

In my opinion, the amount raised in the ICO project does not determine the success of the project. Because most recent ICo projects are just raising money for developers to add more wealth, only a very small part is used to develop products.

To create a project you need money, it will not be a secret for anyone.
If developers have no money, then of course they go to the crypto market in order to collect investments.
However, there is already no such rule that the more they gather, the better.

Yes, ICO's fundraising is very important. Good projects can usually raise funds smoothly, but bad projects usually fail. The most correct way is to leave the ICO project investment, which is not suitable now.

The success of the project will never be determined based on the amount they raised during ICO. It depends with their strategy on how they will continue advertesing their project to be popular and how they will build a partnership to a well known company that can also be used to let an investor know how much potential their project has to multiply their investment. Ofcourse, trust from their community to the team members should be one of the fundamentals for their growth and success.

Satoshi nakamoto didn't need to fund but Ethereum and Vitalik did, they implemented ICO at 2014 and it can be considered the most successful ICO in this market

I think its not!? But the raised funds is also have and important role to developed the project more, And the more important is the projects utilization and true used cased if this elements and capability is possesed to the said project. I presumed this project has a bright future and opportunity to grow!

To me,fund raised during an ICO should GI along way to contribute to the success of a project because every project need money to push their project most especially to a better exchange.

Vitalik made an ICO as well, here is an ANN thread -  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=428589.0)

About funds raised and success of the project, in 70% of cases probably yes. But not always.
For example Dragon Coins, DRG. Raised about 400m$, and I can't tell that project is really successful now.

First, they need to call for funds so that funds can be developed to develop ideas in their ICO. It contributes a small part to the success of that project. However, many projects with superior technology will attract investors themselves.

It depends on how the team is working on the project. Even if it is hardcap but the team is not doing their job then it is worthless and also don't expect that the coin is automatically pump since it reaches hardcap. That is not the way it used to be.

It is necessity to start a fund raiser since the meaning of ICO itself is Initial Coin Offering. Most altcoins did that before they're in their state as a cryptocurrency.

Vitalik did a fund raising and that is Ethereum. Not sure if Satoshi did that since Satoshi Nakamoto is still an enigma until today.

Answering the first question, it can be said that the amount of funds collected through ico does not determine the success of the projects now, the reason is that the last time a lot of scammers spend ico and they simply collect the funds and don’t develop their product or platform. In my practice, there have already been such ico, which collected more than 100 000 000 USD and so did not launch their product. Answering the second question, we can say for sure that projects need to raise funds for the launch, but I do not think that such large sums should be collected. As for the third question, Nakamoto did not conduct ico to raise funds, and Acne did it all the way.

The amount of funds collected is not an indicator of the success of the project. After that, the developers may disappear, and this project will be a Scam. Or just abandon the project. A successful one can be one that strictly follows its road map and does not deal with the constant postponement.

In fact, in the early development stage of crypto, we can find that Bitcoin does not have any ICO. For Ethereum, although it is the earliest ICO, in fact vitalik only got a $500,000 investment. Very few compared to the current ICO, but Ethereum has been successful. In 2017, many ICOs received more than $10 million in financing but still failed.

Not really, the amount of raised fund of ico projects can be fabricated by the owner of the project to attract more peoples.
But if the amount of raised fund is real, then it is either a good project or peoples believe their project because the company is already exist before they using cryptocurrency to crwodfunding.

Yes, the amount of  money raised in an ICO to a vety large extent determine the success of a project. To your second question, you need capital to start a project or consumate an idea! Vitalik held IPO and it was successful. You can see the effect on ethereum today!

the amount of money that there certainly indicates that the project has a lot of interest and support. This makes the project showed great success potential. but see from the wallet in the real of this would be necessary because the existing amount could be just a hoax and not in accordance with what is in the wallet.

Bitcoin does not have an ICO but ETH has one. IMO, fund raising depends on the business model of the project. Some project requires funding which will help to achieve the project milestone easily and faster.

Im feeling doubt about if DRG gets more than 400 millions for real? DRG has been scamming a lot of investors and this time it has been changing its business into the exchange site business. There was a lot of exchange sites that don't even need any pennies to create its own exchange site.

fundraising at the ICO is a manifestation of support for ICO to be getting bigger. But even many projects without the Fund raising ICO also became large and can be successful. It just may be a lot more looking for certainty to enter in the ICO because of a more serious look. even that became dubious of this also because of the scam, too.

At the start there's a little doubt and the fact that they raise that big amount, they should have a active and supportive community.
Right now, the daily volume is less than $100,000, it does not reflect its amount raise if people are actively trading, and I'm sure they can afford to get listed in big exchange such us Binance and Houbi.


http://i66.tinypic.com/2lo2bev.png
Price is diving down as you can see on the picture above.

[/color]

Initial coin offering (ICO)  is failing at this point in cryptocurrency market.  So many people  have associate ICO with scam and this is affecting the genuine ICO as well.  The recent ICO offering  have seen many failures in regards to raising funds as people are tired of investing!

I don't think the amount collected in an ICO is the main indication that a project is success, that is just the starting point of the real project.
Afte the funding, the real fight is begin for the project to be success or not in a real way.

A lot of projects that did not submit anything to the market. According to statistics, 80% of projects are closed during the first 6 months after listing on the stock exchange. Therefore, the amount that the project collects on ico does not directly affect the implementation of the plan. First of all, people are important, if they are not compliant, then wait for troubles.

While most ICO projects claim to raise funds to implement the project, I think it's a lie, because manufacturing crypto doesn't require high prices, and most projects are not complicated.

Funds today for some reason are beginning to increase their opportunities. Today, for some reason, this market is beginning to prepare for a big breakthrough, there are many predictions about it on the forum, but all this is just people's dreams and nothing more.

I doubt as well. But, by official info they raised that. Most investors were Macau casinos with millions of investments, that could clarify law trading volumes.
And was one of biggest ICO last year.
Got some bounty tokens from them, that's why hope it is true, and someday they will rocket up.

Not necessarily. In most cases they are trying to raise more funds than they actually need and with some good optimization project can be successful even if they don't reach hard cap.
If you don't have very rich parents or Santa Claus really likes you, you would need to raise some funds.

Well, it will be very difficult, especially in times when money begins to lose its value, you understand that this has been going on for a very long time. If you think that now the market is really what you need, then I can say that getting money now is harder.

Absolutely not. I have already seen projects that have raised over 40 million USD and are still not live on exchanges or they have lost around 50 percent from the ICO price. It is sad but the amount of money raised does not guarantee anything.

Vitalik did a fund raising for Ethereum, but it was not done for bitcoin, because bitcoin has been existing, before the advent of ICO.
ICO is meant mainly for altcoins.

That money is raised during ICO or that so much is raised, does not mean the project will succeed, but that the success is dependent more on how the team handles it.

Its not the fair basis if the project is successful. Its just the start for the project to keep on going and use the fund they have collected to make their project working and successful.
If there's really no source at all, yes.
Bitcoin no, eth yes.

If you think that now the market is really what you need, then I can say that getting money now is more difficult. Yes, that will be very difficult, especially in times when money starts to lose value, of course you already understand that this has happened very long.

yeah, i think the amount of money collected in one ico determines the success of the project and of course the main thing is the hard work of the development team is also very necessary.

and for the second question, to start a project requires a lot of funds so i think it really is needed to start a project.

Depending on the size and the goal of the project, some can start with at a smaller amount but still succeed.
I think what majority of people would really look into is the development of the project, there are a lot of projects that were able to collect their hard cap but until now, there is no progress on the value of the assets, some even sink.

I think satoshi and vitalik doesn't really focused on fund raising, they are just truly passionate about what they like to innovate and implement for the world. Also, I think huge fund raising is applicable to projects with tangible products that requires manufacturing in order to develop.

The amount of fund collected during ICO is not the main parameter for a successful project. They are just starting their way developing their project.
From that on the will start to develop even further to make the project to be successful.

First question, the success of the project? not really, but it definitely shows that the ICO is succeeded and many people interested to their idea. Most of the project doing ICO before even the product of the project is released, so if the ICO is succeeded does not always mean that the project will succeed too.

Second question, not really there are many project that not doing ICO for some reasons, some of them are already funded by a big company behind them, or they have got some money from private investor, or they have a boom pre-sale, and they don't need to have ICO.

For the third question, as far as I know Satoshi never do ICO, he just created the Bitcoin blockchain, ask some crypto enthusiast to help him working on the bitcoin blockchain and spreading word through this forum. As for Vitalik's Ethereum, I don't think he did any ICO too, but I don't really know the details about Ethereum.

When many ICO have raised of amount their ICO selling will make its have higher price alter after listing at exchange market, many investor will buy and re invest again.

to be able to determine whether the ico project is successful or not you can see it with a total fundraising that has been collected, if the soft cap has been achieved, it is usually enough.

usually projects require fundraising because they want to see whether the concept of development is needed and have very high demand or not because it can determine the future price of their products.

while this satoshi nakamoto and vitalik is the founder of bitcoin and ethereum, for bitcoin there is no need to hold a fundraising because bitcoin will have its own price from the influence of buyers and sellers.

for ethereum if it is not mistaken this also uses fundraising for ethereum to achieve the greatest success in ICO history.

Nakamoto did not start an ICO only Vitalik, I think it is not necessary to start an ICO to start a project if a project has private funding they can just go right ahead and list their coins in exchanges, but ICO is the easiest way to do everything.

Reaching hard cap doesnt mean the project success and the price keep stable in market. As far i know, vitalik launch ICO to raise fund but not with satoshi. Bitcoin not lauching an ICO and no premine

Satoshi no, Because in the beginning of the story of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is starting to use as payment for pizza and ETC. But as I know ETH is started at ICO or ITO or TGE not sure but from token sale and related on your topic.

For btc theres none but for eth there was I believe as I am not into crypto when eth was introduced. Raised funds is the biggest factor of success in an ICO as it can be a determinator if a lot of investors are interested and also those funds will be used to launch the project however all of this will be gone if suddenly devs will not continue or just a scam.

Some projects can continue their development if they get a certain amount of money through providing fundraising. If the amount cannot meet with the target, they state to fail. But several projects don't depend on the collected funds to run their projects. It is all about the team plans and project's needs.  


For a project that cannot continue its development without collected funds from investors, fundraising is a crucial thing.

ICOs only benefits the developers not investors and no matter how much they make it doesn't mean the project will be successful, I'm starting to hate ICO projects

I don't think the money raised in an ico can determine the success of the project because it's the beginning phase of the project and they need that money to continue the project and pay the expenses inside the project. Usually, with the money the project got, they go to the next phase which will develop the other part of the project.

Satoshi Nakamoto didn't start a fund raised, but he tells people about the bitcoin project and many people enthusiasm to being part of the project. I think vitalik does start a fund raiser at the beginning of the ethereum project, but I am not sure about that since I don't follow their project from the beginning.

Is it successful, do you mean the price of tokens / coins on the market?

if yes, the answer is NO

The success of a token / coin in the market is not determined by how much money is collected during the ICO, because a lot of projects that have successfully raised a lot of funds during the ICO but at the time of entering the market the price was destroyed, and vice versa projects that were underfunded during ICO but were actually successful in the market.

it all depends on the project developer managing the project

if the project to be built is a big project I think fundraising is needed

Satoshi Nakamoto : No
Vitalik : Yes, he doing ICO

Exactly. The amount collected is far from a guarantee that the project will go public and that you can earn something from it. Today this is a really difficult process, because the risk of getting involved in a scam project is always high.

It is good to generate funds to support the project, but it is not necessary as long as they have private backing or the devs pooled their own money to set up the project any way they can always get their funding and make more profit. by selling their tokens in the market.

in part, of course, yes it’s the amount of money that determines how much investors trust this project

I agree, I think most likely the amount of funds raised reflects the demand for the project, and of course the marketing course.

Of course it does.  Indeed, it depends on the amount of funds raised how the team will act in order to realize their product!

For success, you need a product. The team collects money in order to pogatitsya on it. Or hire those who will develop their project for them.

Vitalik and Satoshi are rich now, but it was not always before the creation of their unique projects, they could hardly boast of their wealth and glory. But in any case, they have achieved it themselves, without the need for any fees. And unfortunately today such startups are getting smaller every day.

- the amount of funds collected greatly influences the success of the project rather than determining only influence, it is capital and if capital is met well then at least the constraints due to lack of capital can be overcome, it also greatly affects the speed of the project to develop, just imagine if the project is financially the project will be hampered to develop and their road map will jam

-is very dependent on the developer, if the developer already has enough funds to maintain the project, there is no need to raise funds

- Apparently not, but their team is a good team which of course has enough capital

Based on my understanding, crowdfunding an ICO does not mean the devs does not have enough funds to run their platforms. It's just that they want to make sure their project will be up to the public and that many would know the function of their platform. Also, it is how crypto works, where the coins start as zero and then after the crowdfunding the amount raised is what is paid for the next step on their roadmap.

Now there are too many scam in this market. I invested in 3 ICOs in 2018, all of them got hardcap but after listing in exchange. The price of those tokens is 3-5 times lower than the ICO price, and then for a while its price even drops by 20-30 times. A big scam

Of course, the amount of funds raised affects the success of the project, because if the project does not collect money, it will not be able to start!

The money raised from projects is an important factor in success. If fundraising fails, the project will be difficult to continue to develop and the project will soon end when the team doesn't have the motivation and money to maintain the project.

Those are essential things. Yes, Satoshi and Vitalik had previously called for capital and they succeeded. But those are ICO projects implemented with a lot of enthusiasm. The amount of attraction will have a significant impact on the development of the project. If no softcap is achieved, the project fails.

It's time to forget that you can earn money on ICO. The risks are too high. The market is bearish, around many scam projects. It is better to invest in existing projects.

Thats right! As most new coins that enter the market doesnt have any chance to double the amount of its ICO price and thats the reality. Better to hodl coins that are existing and being developed. Take a look on INS(insolar) which is one of the most developed project in 2018. Currently undervalued but surely it will give you fortune this year.

This is the result. If the fund is not raised, it means that the project will not be successful. Now there is almost no new ICO project release, because ICO has lost a lot of investors and no one will invest in ICO projects. There are too many scammers here.

yes,because they would need that one to develop the project and for the team also.. 
if the ceo / founder has a budget then he can do even without ico, but it depends on the project

It is always a great sign that a project has collected a lot of money. It shows that people are interested in this ICO, but it does not guarantee that a project would be kept at such level, because everything depends on the team members.

to work on initiation as DOGEM projects to prepare offers with future reference of service for pupils of indonesia
as managing use with deductive evaluation to gives with notables as returns of data and information gathering to prepare with submission of strings with the chance as referring queries.

        Money raised in an ICO project is very important and is the result of a good promotion of the project. A project creates ICO to raise funds to solve a problem. The way the project is presented, but also the trust that the investors have in the team and in the project, attract funds. Unfortunately, there are many ICO projects that are based on people's naivety and are just for SCAM.

surely this is due to a long-term fall in the market and investors are starting to make funding to help the market go up and everything is going well.

In my opinion, the amount of money raised in ICOS campaigns is very important to success as well as the development scale of the project. There are many ICOS strategies that can expand and maintain long-strategies long of the project because of founding raise.

At times if a project does not raise the required amount needed to start, the project will not become successful.  The money raises as well as other factors such as the team and developers contribute to the success of a project.

A lot of capital mobilization cannot guarantee the development of a project, I see many projects have mobilized tens of millions of dollars, but for a long time not being able to launch products, roadmap always suffers delay.

In most cases, the success of the project depends on the hard work of the development team. There were cases when having collected a lot of money during the ICO, developers began to lead an idle life, pushing the development of the project into the background.

I don't think that the amount of money is a determining factor in the success of a project. A lot of old projects raised some money, but were able to gather their audience and attract new investors after the launch of the project.

the amount sometimes to me is just the team feeling to hyped about there ideas

ICO was meant to be a smart way to get a project to raise money alongside community building but that was affected with greed and unregulated space

Amount of raised funds no matter something. I just check ratio of collected funds to hard cap, it shows market interest to coin. Generally speaking I prefer low cap coins.

Satoshi not colected any money before he launched Bitcoin.
Vitalik and Ethereum had ICO before they created the Ethereum ecosystem. Also many big projects like IOTA or NEO funded their projects by ICO sale.

If the project is of high quality and the team plans to complete it, then of course it plays.

of course yes , developers need funds to pay the salaries of their company employees

if no funds can make a project, everyone will have their own project

no for satoshi and yes for vitalik

the amount obtained from an ico does not determine the success of the project. investors see the uniqueness of the products or technology they offer. that way, investors can determine whether they want to invest or not.

and does not have to start from raising funds. can use their own funds, and if anyone is interested. the funds that you spend will you get back.

In fact, the budget of the fees that the project has set for itself is largely overstated by the actual amount that can help them achieve the goal.

That is the reason why they are launching an ICO, they need money and they want it to pay for creators of their platform, Satoshi Nakamoto did not launch an ICO and these ICO only started when Vitalik started an ICO.

Fund raising is important part for the project development. It is needed for the smooth progress of the project
development . Some projects are raising more funds as they need and setting unrealistic goals for soft cap and hard cap.

Many projects who raised millions also got failed.

NO need to start the project,ut they also need funds for developing that project.

We don't even know who are them so no one can find it.

Of course, if you raise more money. Your project will be more successful, and the price of your token will be higher than the ICO price. That is sure to happen. But in 2018 I saw many projects that raised more than $ 30-40 million but they disappeared and scam

No budget everything is useless.
Project without enough fund raising will end up just an idea. Money gives fuel to create the idea into reality from intangible to tangible. No money no project no product to produce.

because money is an important thing to build an idea because most ideas have a connection with funds that must be held. therefore the capital needed to develop ideas and without capital the idea will die

If the project is serious and a lot of money has been invested in it, this can guarantee the project a good future as a project, because they have enough money to implement their idea, and even if they make a mistake they can try another way, because it will allow them money. But the success of the token depends on it only indirectly, unfortunately.

This are one of the problems we faced in 2017, we forgot that they were all startups and we kept putting fund to projects because of the hype. Now we see the rate most of them failed. 2016 project were still better and 2017 had the highest fund but it could not help to prevent the dump in the subsequent year. I hope we have better valuation in the market this year and beyond. Investors will ask questions nore on the high project valuation out experience. The era of selling a small portion of the stake is now heralding which could also be of concern in coming months

Well, ETH is famous for their ICO.
just do a quick google and you will find all kinds of articles about it.
When ETH was doing their ICO, peopel were yelling SCAM!
It was a new model for startups and people were suspicious.

Now, eth has basically laid down the blueprint for ICO success.
It has generated an entire economy within and economy.

As far as Satoshi goes, I'm not aware of any fundraising that happened.
Part of the mystery and awesomeness of btc is that Satoshi created it all himself.
Because it is such a huge achievement, many believe that satoshi was actually a group of people.
Whatever the case, there was no btc ico, just geeks mining in those early years.

Having a successful ICO means the development of the project is guaranteed and use the money to develop the product. However, some projects can't deliver what's in the whitepaper and roadmap. They sell only the idea and no working product and the lack of real world use case of product and token the project will start to fail.

The amount of the fund raised in ICO doesn't determine the success of the project, it depends on how the project utilizes that money to launch their products as they promised after the fund raising. The longer the time team takes time to launch their product the less likely the product or company will become valuable or sustainable. Lauching products on the market is the first task for the ICOs but making it adopted by the user is the biggest challenge for the ICOs as if there will be no user then the product is useless. They need to build the active community which will support their project & engage with community members actively. Raising funds for any fresh startup is really necessary as they need huge amount of money to build team, marketing, exchange listing etc. Also Satoshi nakamoto never raised money by ICO for your kind information. It was vitalic who raised by through ICO in 2014 rasing 3700BTC at that time valueng around 2.5Million $.  

Not always is monies needed, i think it all depends on the project and what it involves, but trust me at any particular time monies are needed  to run the project and  ensure it becomes successful and that is definitely come from raised funds.

The amount raise do not equate into success, we have seen over and over again that ICO which raise reasonable amount of money perform better than those that raise uncapped funds and take their investors for granted, Binance and Stratis are two projects that put value ahead of greed and their investors have raked huge profit investing into them

No not really, it depends on how big the project is, well, let say the project is small, so it doesn't really require a huge fund in order for it to be successful in the market. And that's the case.

There was ICO for Ethereum but not for Bitcoin, I do not think ICOs need much funds for the start up of the project. There were some apps who needed millions to build a mobile app, like for real.

No, there are many ICO which raised their hard cap and even some raised more than $100 million dollars but still a shit coin right now.

Not really, anyone can start with his own money and his own team, they are just doing it to minimize the risk or to transfer the risk to the ICO buyers.
Satoshi, no - I guess ETH had an ICO.

no, it's not, the success of the project is not determined by money raised from ICO.
currently the success of the project is determined by the demand in the market and also the real product of the project.
BTC = no ICO
ETH = Yes

1. Not necessarily, but it definitely can help. If you can't raise as much as needed for the mvp, then you can say good bye. But there are also a lot more to what determines the success of a project.

2. Depending of a project. If it needs bigger investments to get started, then yeah, you need to raise funds somehow. If you have the know-how and don't need to raise much funds, then you can get going without it.

3. They just had the skill-set already, that was needed for them to get it going.

While not all project has ICO, as usually backed by some companies.

The reasons why some do ICO may be:
first, they are doing it for fundraising, which is really for the development of the project;
Second, some spam; as lots ICOs in 2018, while most of these projects were only for money
Third, ICO is also kind of way of promotions, makes more people know of their products.

That's the point, even successful ico who reached both soft and hard cap still shit right now and development is not that much some still not listed from any exchange, project that well funded supposedly doing progress and give good returned to its respective investors are not doing anything, it's no longer 2016 or 2017 where projects gives a lots of profits.

Investors are no longer interested as they are not getting any good outcome, though some still taking the risk but also wiser enough to select new
project that have a good potentials to bring higher chances of success.

There is no need to raise funds in order to startup a project because most of the projects can be started with little to no investment. Most of the people will have this much amount. Once you want to take your project to the next level you can raise the required funds through public or private funding.
Most of the successful companies in the world are started with no to less investments. You definitely don't need millions of dollars for a startup.
Yes, Vitalik raised funds but Satoshi didn't.

Not really, the amount of fund raised does not determine the success of the project. I remember one project named Bitclave in late 2017, its hard cap was achieved in just 30 seconds or so but project did not go well. If there is a strong team behind a strong concept then rate of success is more. Vitalik has raised funds for ICO. Currently many projects are turning SCAM this is one concern which needs to taken seriously otherwise fund raising is a normal process for any good company to expand their work area.

Unfortunately, the funds collected by the project are not a guarantee of success. Since most projects can not perform their communications and provide the product that was announced. It is a fact. I have seen quite a lot of projects that raised a lot of investments but could not do anything.

A hard cap or collecting huge amount of money does not equate to the success of a project. Take for example, INS. It reached hardcap but look at where it is now in cmc. Barely achieving the task in their roadmap.

Much better to invest in projects with working product and did not conduct an ICO like exrn.

of course it is very decisive because if the project lacks funding, the project will be hampered by development and even die and why is the ICO needed? the reason is because most developers have good ideas but don't have enough capital to develop their own projects so they need to hold an ICO to get enough capital

Like other ICOs that have collected and up to $ 10 million and above, that success does not exist?
where is the money if it doesn't work?

Theoretically, the amount of money that the project collects play a significant role in how the product will continue to develop!

Vitalik did fundraising, Satoshi couldn't possibly remain anonymous if he performed something like that.
Some 2017 ICO-s that got hundreds of millions of dollars didn't really need more than a couple hundred thousand to finish their products, so amount of money raised is not an indicator - these guys probably spent in on lambos.
But it really depends on the project complexity, DYOR research individually for each project.

I am sure that certain funds are needed for any project, so that developers can realize their idea. But I can't understand why the projects put the inflated amount for soft cap and hard cap

It does not mean anything. It is awesome for a project that it collected so much money, but it does not guarantee that the team members are going to efficiently use these funds. Some projects are still developing their products.

maybe the determined softcap is indeed needed for the development of a project but unfortunately we have to be careful for that problem because research must be done to know the uses of softcaps and hardcap that they specify to build a project

the goal is like that but unfortunately sometimes the results cannot be utilized optimally by the team so the project is not well developed.
therefore the ICO results do not determine the success of the project, all depends on the team and crypto conditions.

in my opinion even though each project has different objectives and different raised funds it does not make the project a guarantee that a high raised fund project will be successful, there are also other factors such as exchange and market conditions at that time

Satoshi did not raise funds. Bitcoin was mostly developed  by the small community of developers back then and it was mined by the community in a fair manner unlike what is obtainable today.
 It was a true community driven project.

Yes, I also noticed that people's appetites are growing. You understand that for such big money a lot can be done, but for some reason people do not ask such questions. Therefore, I am very scared to think about it.

No, it is not the amount of how much raised in the ico stage determines its future. But by its use. Because as we see, the team have come up with a plan for making ico sale, and they have a token that has a function, if that token really succeed beyond our expectation, then we can expect success to it.

If an ICO is successful in soft-cap, its project is already attractive to investors, although it is still quite dangerous to only acquire soft-cap with a current ICO. Satoshi and Vitalik have never created a fundraiser as far as I know, they create a platform and make money from many people using it.

Why should it? I mean there are still some projects that have collected a lot of money, like 60-70 million USD and that are doing absolutely nothing till now. No product development, no exchanges, no communication.

Given that BTC didn't need fundraisers it's pretty obvious that epic projects don't need an ICO - even if the money would help.
Now ICO-s are mostly small-business/startup type companies and if you don't perform an ICO while your competitors do - you're behind.

I sometimes think why the softcap for ICO is set at $ 7 million. But like you, I don't understand. Moreover, some ICO collected tens of millions of dollars, these are really huge numbers.

It does not necessarily determine the succes of the project but it can be a starting point for it.

it's not a necessity to raise funds in order to start up a project. Some projects already had the financial resources to start their project without needing to raise funds

Indeed there are those, projects that already have funds can usually start their projects quickly. But if the project does not have funds, of course they will do fundraising, namely ICO so that the projects they run can develop.

Of course, the more money a project has, the wider its opportunities, the better quality conditions a project team can create for itself to be realized. However, not always the money collected is not for personal needs.

Not all projects spend the collected money in good faith. Units of invest in project on his development, much of to rich team! But there are projects that have collected a good amount really advanced your project.

for example, you will have the idea to start own business, but you didn't have any investment means, what you do?

Just you can drop the plan of starting own business or you can get the loan from any bank. For getting a loan you can provide a lot of details to the bank.
and it takes some time to buy the loan.

For avoiding these and you can raise the money easily via ICO.

ICO is the fundraising tool to get started your dream business early.

Have an idea to launch ICO, consult with icoclone.com

yes, funds are the main factor that determines whether ico will succeed or not. because all the development carried out, requires large funds, from the initial process until finally the process of launching to the market exchange, requires substantial funds.

When ICOs reaching the target, the project should run and produce a working product. But i dont think this will related to the price in market. I can mention a few project that reach their hardcap but the price in market drop very deep. Like OMX or Shivom project, the ICO raise $50million and its not reflected on the price in market

Yes, and how funds can be collected, if the concept is not yet mature?
If you think funds are the main factor, do you also think funds will come by itself, If the concept (what is clear is the ICO icon) no longer be top priority in the development of the ICO and as determinant the success of the project ...

money wasn't key factor for projects,sometime developers team has less money could make their projects success in market.if they serious how to developt every single feature on their project it will attract much investors , even that in market or on ico stages.

If not then why would they put a hard cap and soft cap?
It's crowd funding and they are certainly into raising money and the more money they raise the better chance they have to develop the project.
They already have outline all their plans on how to develop the project and everything needs funding for them to initiate the plan.

So, if you trust them, you should be aggressive with your investment.

Vitalik Buterin also spent ICO. Satoshi ico did not conduct but simply tried to popularize bitcoin at the expense of small prices. And since bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency it was able to beat the price record. In general, ICO at the moment does not mean anything. The project can raise a large amount of money and the abyss.

Does the amount of money collected in one ico determine the success of the project ??
I don't think so, because in my experience many ICOs have raised a lot of money and after a few months Iico failed and did not develop anymore
Do you need to raise funds to start the project ??
I don't think it's necessary, if the ICO developer already has his own funds or has funds from private investors
Did satoshi nakamoto and vitalik also start raising funds ??
I do not know

Yes, amount raised on ICO determines sucess. it is one of the points, it shows demand on token and after listing this power will cause market growth in a first week of trading!

that growth will occur if the market has large demand. if it's only a small demand or in a not so large amount I don't think it will be able to move the market.

I think you are mistaken. Success for liquid projects that had a product without question. But this means nothing. If the project is really good. The price of its coins will grow even without ICO. In general, fundraising is not a guarantee of success.

Yes, I also noticed that today a very large number of projects are constantly increasing their funds, or it is better to say the amount of necessary funds. Today, for the normal operation of the entire project does not need so much money. Because today there are volunteers and open source.

Ico fund raising is used or a way to save money or attract people to cryptocurrency for invest.This is the way in which bounty projects are used to promote the project and to earn money on the project.

The money collected in ico will of course affect success, but now you know that most of them are scam. it is very difficult to find the correct ico organizer.  In general, neo-based icos are more successful because  they are being checked.

I believe that Satoshi Nakamoto did not do any fundraising as it states on the forum about the launch of BTC on mining.
ICO fundraising needs to reach the soft cap to perform the project but this is not always true as some team dont mind the soft cap nor hard cap but the project to be in the community.

It's not determining if the IcO become successful in the fund raising. Because the successful of the ICO for me they get their funds and they will be listed to the market because they have ICO let's say that they will get the funds according to the plan but they did not listed the token or coin so it will become useless. There is no way to know if the ICO become successful or not but you can know it after.

The answer is " NO ", fund is second but powerful system to run project is the first part. Some ICO project built only with concept and simple marketing to get fund and success, this is strategy that should they do as developer. Not too scare you but have big money but can't increase trust will kill the project.

My answer to question 1 is yes. Money raised on ICO determine its success. But for how long the project will go will be determined by how many supports it. Some projects are successful at first but fades after a few months and some already forgotten. For me I hope developers continue on developing their project so investors and users will benefit for long term.

After Adab I don't think there are legit project anymore or if there are still it's hard to check what are these legit projects because even legit projects can run off and deceive bounty hunters, it's very hard to invest in ICO right now we need a certain regulation for this.

of course the success of a project depends on fundraising that he can and it is very important to run the company and pay their employees the need for substantial funds. I don't think bitcoin does ICO

we are now preparing plan on scheme with the future offers of service with the ico terms of plan on completion as the projects on service for pupils of indonesia to requires of minimum investment funds of 40000 dollar to complete the beginning works on development with 3-6 month calendar days of completion.
if from indonesia and interested to work with us on investment with the ico scheme please supports us vivachesster@gmail.com

Absolutely NOT, the fund raised during ICO is small part to judge the project is success or not, THE MAIN KEY is what the project do after ICO phase (at least they MUST follow the Roadmap that they created before)

Not always, I know some project not doing ICO or fund raising phase.

BTC (Satoshi Nakamoto): Absolutely NOT
ETH (Vitalik): Yes, he (they) did

No, of course not. The amount of money raised during the ICO is not connected with its success in the future. And history knows a lot of such examples already. There were such projects which collected millions of dollars and then turned out to be just scam projects. And it's very disappointing as for me. Because the whole crypto sphere transformed into pump and dump stories, nobody care about how crypto can contribute to the society and life to make it better but only looking for 100x profits and how to get rich quickly. So sad...

Vitalik was one of the first, but they honestly collected a small amount to the development of the project, now many projects overestimate themselves.

The more popular the project, the more funds it can collect during ICO. Investors understand that their money will easily come back and make a profit, and therefore they are all trying to invest as much money as possible in the project.
As far as I know, Vitalik held ICO at the start of Ethereum, and if I am not mistaken, Ethereum then cost around 1 dollar.

Most of the successful projects i have seen, were able to raise adequate fund for their projects. This is why they usually have soft cap and hard cap. The only thing that will make a project that reached hard cap not to succeed, is if it is a scam project and we have seen so many of them in the crypto space. They take investors' money without doing anything meaningful.

Look, there is about demand. If ICO won't collect hard cap, then demand isn't sufficient, then price goes down.
Speaking about ICOs, then somebody team can realise a good product without big money

From the little info I have with me, Vitalik did a crowdsale but Satoshi didn't.
Most people organized this ICOs because it was the time for ICOs in the year of 2017. The majority of the projects that time were not with any vision beyond selling of the tokens on exchanges.
The success of a project should not be based of the amount of money raised. Even these days, new  decentralized exchanges raise funds, this does not make sense because no one will use your funds. You do not have to hold fiat for customers to exchange with tokens yet they issue their own tokens for no reason.
ICOs are just a way to make money out of thin air because after the tokensale, community members who invested in the project do not have a say. The devs make everything in favor of themselves.

If you look at projects like EOS and Tezos then you will see that money does help but it is not guaranteed. They broke records but tezos remains outside the top twenty, and EOS has not been able to topple ethereum

Yes. To start the project requires money. Satoshi Nakamoto and Vitalik also spent money to run the project. Maybe they find it harder to raise money than today's ICO developers. Because no one believes in coins or Bitcoin when Satoshi Bakamoto runs his business. The most expensive and valuable cryptocurrency is the idea of launching a project.

Amount raised by a project, does not in anyway determine if it's successful or not if they have no real use or working products the coin is absolutely useless.  Also a project does not need to have a public funding.  Some have what is called a private sale while some are self funded. I don't know about satoshi but ethereum had a crowd funding

One of the best way to raise funds or money is ICO  because of the way that investors will invest there investments and make profits. but before they invest they make sure of project if ir legit because if the project is legit it will earn big and investors will give their investment.

ICO is used for a team to raise fund for their project although there are other projects that were funded by the team members while others were able to get investors on their own without resorting to crowdfunding. The success of ICO does not indicate that the project will be successful. Some team are a bunch of scammers who will collect money from people and ran away.

Some projects don't have a better or real use case so so even if they raise enough funds for their project that has no real use or solve any human problem will definitely fail.

No, I have seen projects that hardly collected soft cap and they are successfully developing.

No

Only vitalik started a fund raised

and it happen now, much ico projects has no usage in their tokens.actually it will be useless if we invest in this projects.or even we will suffering alot of money ,if this projects abandoned their investors.

Of course, projects that collect a lot of money will be more successful. But there are also many projects that have collected hardcap but they are still scam because they created that project to trick all investors. I have seen a lot

Not always true the more funds you have the better chance of success, it really depends on the team and their level of skill.

The amount of raised money only say that the marketing team and bounty hunters made a great job. But it does not say something about the further project development and the potential success of this company.

One thing is certain in the past, the higher the mobilized amount, the better and appreciate the potential of that project. now, money is only a small concern for investors. They often look at partners, their development areas to assess the potential for expansion and development, the team and the way of financial distribution, ...
That is the key factor to bring sympathy to investors now.

fund raising in ico is average these days but even after raising the fund by ico companies still they struggle to develop the project the main reason is because of bear market

In my opinion if indeed there is no financial capital at all then it never hurts to do fundraising first to start the project. But my suggestion is that the ICO still remembers those who gave injections of funds in the beginning that caused the project to run so that when successful, ICO should provide a return. Without injection of funds at the beginning, the project will not get many investors and can be successful.

Found raising is a way the project developers use to raise money for they projects and business and most of the ICO in the latest time have use the means of found raising to make the self's rich at the detriment of the investors if not most genuine team don't really need to raise any found before they can develope their coin.

Honestly, the bounty is not helpful for projects in 2018. Most accounts involved in bounty are bots so it does not help many people know their projects.

I have seen 30 million funding project still not going to exchange just some investors traded in forkdelta and idex free exchange. There are many million raising project still not listed in a single exchange but few projects not raised soft cap but now live on couple of exchange but definitely those are legit project.

Most ICOs want to increase their funds to get rich. We cannot know what they will do with investors' money. I think they will eat, travel, shop and they will use the rest of the fund to develop the project.

Funds today are terribly impoverished. Today, many investors simply left the market, because today many projects turned out to be terrible scammers who stole a lot of money. It is terrible to think what they will do with such money.

Vitalik Buterin conducted the usual ICO that we can see today in other projects. But at that time there was a very strong HYIP cryptocurrency. Therefore, the project survived ETH) the Way bountyhunter received a very good reward. Such a reward was never) since then, all waiting for the same projects but they will not. And I'm sure they won't be until bullrun!

Do you think that advertisements in this forum and social networks where crypto enthusiasts gather do not help ICOs? So where do the investors find projects? White papers are translated in dozens of languages.

Vitalik fathered all these ICO because of the smart contract that he creates, Satoshi did not but create a very huge demand on his creation, if a project is to be realized it should have funds, they can get it either from private sales private backing and community crowdfunding.

The money raised during an ICO do not determine the success of the project. A project like the 4NEW Kwartts sold each token for $0.5 to $2 during the different stages of the ICO and made a total amount of $40M but when it got listed it never reached even the price of $0.5. Investors have become long term hodlers for almost a year now.
Money raised through ICOs are normally used to develop or finish up with the development of the product of the project. After this, some forget to invest and work on their marketing strategies hence leaves the price hanging after getting listed on the market.

Some of the projects now have already secured a private funding first before going to the crowdsale.
They understand the market situation and they know if they will rely fully on the people to invest in the project, they won't get their expectation.

In my opinion, it doesn't work that way, the more fund that had been collected means the development fund to make the project up an running for current and future development will be sufficient. So the amount of money collected during ICO will not mainly determined by the total amount of fund collected.

Fundraising I think is very much needed. And what has happened so far is that many projects do this and if what is collected does not reach Soft Cap, the project fails. Some funds are returned by investors because the project does not reach Soft Cap. Collecting funds is very important because it will determine the ICO project journey.

if something bad happens, the money will come back, if it no returns sometimes there are some who don't return the money and maybe that is an ICO fraud.

if the project is good and works well, maybe fundraising is very good and needed.

If a project has collected a lot of money, it means that they have a lot of potential to improve their product and maybe to launch their token on several big exchanges. But not every team is doing so, a lot of projects are likely to spend money on themselves and to forget about the project.

The amount collected on the ICO actually determines the success of the project, but this is one of the criteria, because without a professional team nothing will come out. Bitcoin did not hold an ICO, and Ethereum became one of the pioneers of a new type of crowdfunding and collected a record amount in its time.

maybe vitalik who did fundraising from Ethereum Genesis Sale, for bitcoin Satoshi doesn't seem to do anything like that in my opinion

Fundraising is not required. But if not to raise funds for the development of the project, then it can be delayed for many years. And such terms are not many stand. It's easier when you have the funds raised at the ICO to hire experienced programmers and developers who can quickly solve problems and issues that arise on the way to creating a product.

Most of the ICO are not valuable so if anything will be profitable then we cannot make the complete decision about the future because the trend of the investment and ICO are over and people will searching of the next way of money making so I think it could be not stable for long time.

Everything is logical here - the more money the project collects, the higher the chance that it will be implemented and bring to life the ideas from the White Paper.
Of course there are exceptions, but they happen less often.

Initial Coin Offering or what we commonly call the ICO is an alternative choice of fundraising mechanism. Fundraising is done by the blockchain startup who issues their own crypto tokens and sells tokens to be exchanged for BTC or ETH.

Token users can use this token on certain platforms or sell tokens at the exchange. Tokens basically function like vouchers. Tokens can be exchanged for goods or services on a predetermined platform.

During this time I participated in Crypto and participated in the ICO project. The projects that I follow always do fundraising. Because ICO is very important and of course they have sales targets. And if you can achieve Hard Cap, I think this project will succeed. But all that also depends on the Team behind the project.

They are profitable as a form of investment before, but now it seems not anymore.
Achieving the hard cap is not already a guarantee that a project is a success, they need to market the project to increase the value of the coins which right now is hard to do, I've seen a lot of project which reaches their hard cap but trading below ICO price at this bear market.

1. No, it's only determine investor see that project as a good investment because they think the project can become big in the future.
2. Yes if you want to find an investor to fund your project.
3. I think satoshi is not start the fund raise, i don't know about the other one.

It does not matter if they reach soft cap or hard cap. The goal of this fundraiser is to achieve a money that will help them grow their company and as a reward the investor will likely earn in the long run. The important thing first is to reach soft cap because some company will start their development even if they don't reach hard cap. Sometimes if the ico did not reach softcap the project will be stop because no funds will support their development. The success of a company will depend on how they will develop their product and without product you know some company fail because of this.

the money collected now does not determine the success of the project, which determines the success of the project is the hard work of the team. nowadays there are so many ico who get big money but scam and this will only be detrimental and we need to be careful.

Amount raised does not in anyway determine the success of the project because if the project have no use case or product,  it has no meaning.  Also fund raising is never necessary as many projects are self funded. I don't know about satoshi but vitalik had a token sale

Fundraising does not determine the success of the project. The success of the project is determined by the idea and the team.

I agree to this statement not all icos project that raised a huge amount are become success in the market those project that have no real product or a strong fundamental will became a nonesense project because you can say a project that have a real product can be possible to success in the future.

Before one invest in a project, you should have some sort of  belief in that particular project. Should the project not live up to your expectations as an investor, you need to think critically about the  future prospects of that project.

Yes this is true. If you have a great team and a strong project, you will be able to attract investors who would invest in your ICO and in this way it will help you make money and advance your project further as well. But people have almost lost interest and confidence in the ICOs and they might not take the risk of investing it in any ICO but in some cryptocurrency that promises return.

For your info, ETH was the first ICO project in cryptocurrency history. So, Vitalik raised fund. A project requires a lot of fund to be established and that's why ICO is there. However, not all the time with a big fund raise, project can successful but you know the more fund you have, the more you have the chance to develop your project.

Only good ICOs still have a chance to raise a lot of money from investors. No scam no fake persons behind the project.

I don’t think Satoshi Nakamoto and vitalik did any fund raising for bitcoin, cause if they did,  then he will have to show himself off. And I’ve never heard any story that says they did any fundraising. And his main intention was just to create a tool for peer-to-peer transaction. The ones you see now are just doing business, that’s why they will abandon their projects.

Majority of them are just looking for money and not after building the project. That’s why you will hardly see any unique project these days, they just copy what others have done already. Most of them wants to make money and that’s all they after, and nothing else. When it is not working they will run away with the little they have got.

Not really, i have seen some success projects but they didn't raised too much funds, only about 1 million USD.
to starting a project, of course funds are needed to build it. But if you already have enough funds, it won't be necessary to raise more funds.
I think Ethereum was running ICO, selling their ETH at certain rate.

If the project didn't raised too much funds or at least reach the softcap then the project will be canceled and can't continue because the target of soft cap not reached and they don't have enough funds to continue the project. The team will return the funds back to the investor.

We believe that 2019 is a year of settlement, established for a strong recovery in crypto prices broadly in 2020. Any improvement in the supply / demand dynamics is positive for prices and therefore, the slowdown in ICO funding is positive net. mute, positive.

Why could it be positive? the development of the ico will make markets also move good. but when the market is quiet it will also ico effect on crypto market generally, where the effects of impact on the ico scam investor confidence.

What I know is that if the project starts with ICO, of course, waiting for ICO is a success or not. If success is certainly better because the project can run according to the roadmap. If the ICO is reached by hardcap, of course the process is very likely to be very fast. Unlike the achievement of softcap, of course the project continues to run according to the existing roadmap.

the total amount of funds raised is used for the development of the project and for the marketing even if  funds that have been collected are low,  it is possible to go on and developer the project trying to financing it in a second time, in any case ico is not the only way to finance a project / idea...

The number in one ico will of course determine a result that is awaited by the players in this ico or bitcoin role

The issue of fundraising is certainly not so important in ico if that is to me personally

Satoshi Nakamoto certainly hopes that he will more easily collect all funds from other parties

Ico fund raising is making such achievement to the developer whether they gonna make such an opportunity or not.

I saw ICO in the success of various projects. But I feel confident that the success of this project really requires a lot of capital, especially in need of many investors. It could be different from other people's opinions.

Certainly not, there were projects these that already successfully raised the hardcap and softcap, but proved to be scam later, Datareum is one of them, which I participated upon and got tokens, but later proved to be scammed, which earned a huge amount over ICO token sale and went away with money collected.

Have you seen genesis vision token and it doesn't raise a lot of money but it has traded above the ico price. it's not about how much your amount but it's about how smart you are for managing your money. how much raised is not everything.

The amount of money raised has low effect in determining if a project will be successful. I think the most important thing for a project to be successful is the sincerity and resolute of the team. Envion raised more than 100 million dollars, yet it is no where to be found today.

We know that many ICO projects fail because they have difficulty in raising funds. So that ICO is very important in a project and the Team will work hard to attract investors. Now many people determine projects based on fundraising. If funds can reach Soft Cap, I think more people will join.

ICO projects that achieve softcap or harcap not necessarily they will succeed and succeed, this all depends on the dev who will be able or not to manage the project with the funds that have been collected. if it doesn't work they are called scam projects and that is fatal. Dev should be able to maximize the funds from these investors to develop the project but they might at that time have been blinded by money

I don't think Bitcoin does ICO. A project that does not use ICO can still function if they already have sufficient funds to develop the project. But now many projects fail because fundraising does not reach the minimum target set. So investors who have invested money will be returned.

I agree. We have seen many projects in the past couple of months that raised money and now they are inactive. They either don't take any steps to expand their objectives, or they do any for the investors. That's why that altcoins price are now very very low and investors are in huge losses. So ICO objectives should be fulfilled after raising money and develop their products so that investors will not face hesitation to further involve with the project.

I am agree. Reaching hard cap target doesnt mean the price in market will rising and the project will success. Many coin dont have a solid developers team and after listing in exchanger, the price drop below ICO price. I think investing in ICOs is speculation and we should make a research first before make investment

Some will fail and some will succeed.
But let's admit that right now, the market is bearish so there's only few investors who are willing to invest.

Not only ICO are affected but the entire market, even if they will succeed in ICO, the big challenge then is on how to make the value to remain over ICO price.

if indeed the innovation or their products can be received by the public, they will be useless success with hardcap or softcap. now the people's own trust in ico is also decreasing

The amount raised not not necessarily determine how successful a project is going to be. In fact many projects team do the funding themselves and not through the ICO fund raising. I feel that the success of a project depends on the readiness, activeness, competent and experiences of the team handling it.

I think the fund rising is necessary but the amount raised in 2017 was extremely outrageous, the money needed is start developing a working product, startups only required certain amount of funds but for sure not in tens or hundreds of million. Maybe they need to follow the angel investing model, making fund rising according to their development roadmap.

Many ICOs that used the accused to stay anonymous just like satoshi nakamoto is flawed, now ICO is to develop business projects unlike all the previous blockchain. Another healthy trend is the IEO, where most ICO will launch on exchange or special ICO platform.

Hope to see a positive development this year.

I think yes, because with the accumulation of money from investors, the project will develop the project, ICO is their way to get money and their capital is an idea how the use of money can be an advantage for investors and team

Funding is needed for each ICO project. With the results of fundraising, of course this project will continue to run and develop. Because the goal of the ICO project is to be successful and have valuable coins on the market.

Fundraising to launch a project is always necessary, as it requires a lot of funds for its development and implementation. But the amount of fees will always be different and investors need to explain everything to attract their attention and convince them of the success of the project. Ethereum also conducted ICO, like many other projects, but as for Bitcoin, it was launched only on Satoshi's enthusiasm.

People consider this as success to an crypto project but the real success can be only found after few month later from that coin or token listed on exchanges.Because if the coin is really worth to hold then people will hold their coins for the future purpose not just for the trading,but if it is just shit then project won't withstand for months even.

Not always the collected funds can guarantee the success of the project , there are so many projects that collected hardcap and are in the top cryptocurrency , such as stratis

shitcoins may exist for more than a few months. Such coins can live for years and no one will even understand that these coins will be shitcoins

Maybe yes, but then what the project will do will determine it. So, there was a project recently, sale was over close to hardcap. But, now the price is traded under the price of ICO many times.

Satoshi did not start cryptocurrency crowdfunding, Ethereum founder did. I think vitalik started ICO, I am not sure though.
It is not necessary to go through crowdfunding but it does make funding projects faster for developers. There is another method that has been proven to be successful in the past , that is air drops. But no project does it these days. I guess it doesn't work very well anymore?

Your question is the reality now. At this current situation, People measures a project by its raising fund! But that is absolutely wrong. Most of the ICO projects are being dead because of their false hopes and fake words! They promised a big and high technology but they did nothing except some listing! For example, Online ICO raised their hard cap 50 Million USD but no one knows well about them and there are no major updates in Online project except a google chrome extension! But look at the ICONIQ Holding, they raised only 3 Million EURO but doing some extraordinary developments! I really want to see that people are avoiding big cap's ICO projects!

YES, if we will talk about the ICO, it is pretty much success!
But the fund raised means nothing on the success of the project in the future (demand from the people and rise in the market)

NOT REALLY, but in blockchain and project related to cryptocurrency funding it is, this is a new way of have  a project.

BTC is for mining, as VILATIK and ehtereum were told a scam project.

The  amount of the raised funds are not necessarily determining the success of the project..
Some projects needs bigger funds and some other not. It depends on the project itself how many developers has to be involved etc.

The amount raised in ICO may help fund a project but it is not a determinant that such project will be successful. We have witnessed ICOs that raised enough capital but either exit scammed or turned out pure scam.

I don't think that's the determining factor. The main thing that would be a promising project and investors were interested in what would support the project financially. As far as I remember Vitalik didn't collect any money for start.

Is this not the same in the "real" financial world as well?

Enough scammers in every world, the onus is on the individual to do your due diligence and ensure you are investing in the right project and team for your level of risk tolerance.

I think it is fair to say we ALL got caught up in the last bull run and we ALL lost money...

Investing in anything is always high-risk, but I know there are good projects out there that deserve our attention and investment. 

Well said!
The success of the project does not depend on how much money collected but on who is behind it. During the bull run, people did not do research about ICO at all, they just blindly sent money, which was successfully used by many scammers.
The most important is education and knowledge, which many investors lacked.

Thanks!  And right back at you, people seem to lack accountability for the investment choices they made in the "never-ending" bull run.  There's always someone to take your money if you want to just toss it at anyone with a BTC or ETH address!

There will be countless projects that come out that will make tons of money and provide great ROI's for investors, but your guess is as good as mine and my guess is probably different from yours... lol

 

the amount of money raised at ico fundraising can give an idea of ​​how a project will develop. but if the developer cannot properly use it and they do not innovate on the project created then it can fail. for me the developer team is a matter that must be considered, even though the funds collected are small but if managed by a qualified team, it is likely that the project will succeed.

Sure! We are at the beginning of an adventure with the cryptocurrency industry. Many projects that are now small in a few years have a chance to become international consortia. It is enough to look at what has happened to the garage companies established during the internet bubble. No risk no fun ;)

Yes,raising a amount of money in the ICO means that a projects is successful,without any funds the project will be dead because they cannot develop the project they need funds to use in their development and also the team behind the project need also a salary so that they can continue work with the project.

Amounts raised during the ico does not determine the success of the project neither is it necessary for projects to hold ico is they can develop project by self funding it. Without a working product, the project has a high chance of dying off.

The ICO Foundation is really starting to grow. If now the prices in the market are falling a little, in the future they will inevitably increase and in the future it will be better and better. Cryptocurrencies will be able to conquer our world and the world will become more transparent.

Ico fund raising is being difficult this time because some projects dont reach softcap and expand rhe duration of ico and if it ends and not yet reach softcap the ico will failed,i say this because i saw a lot of ico projects being dead and failing due to conditions of market.

Success is not only from the success of ICO, but the success of ICO is also an important factor in the success of the project, because with the success of the ICO it indicates that many investors are interested in the project, but there are also many projects that fail ICO but their team still supports the project

There are  projects that can set up a platform or a service without going through an ICO, so it's not really necessary but these company or projects wants funds to get their project running smoothly so they go for crowdfunding but this is for real project, but scam projects want to raise funds so they can go to the beach and bar.

It depends on the situation, but today the most tokens are traded under the ICO price though Hard caps were reached. Anyway, the more funds the project collects the more chances on its successful development.

yes exactly. To developt the project , the team of the project need the fund.
So, fund raising is the one of the requisite to developt the project.

Am really hoping to see a good answer on the last question. All the team are interested in now is raising funds. Why start up a project in the first place when you do not have funds. I wonder..

You should research and search for all information by exploring a variety of ico projects then while discussing. I think you will get experience and knowledge quickly rather than just just asking.
Nakoshi Nakamoto and Vitalik are different people, and also have differences. there is a lot of understanding out there so try doing research

You say that success does not come from ICO but you discuss that the project was successful with an ICO trip. This is very embarrassing for everyone with your words.

Yes, the money collected in the ICO affects the success of the project. Many projects in almost every area of the world need funds in terms of development and growth. Most of the projects in the Crypto world also need funds. And the more funds the team members collect, the more they can develop the project.

The amount of money raised does not say anything about further development, token price or general success of a project. It only means that the team has a possibility and funds to do a great work, but it always depend on them.

not really buddy, i have see some project raised fund over 100m$ on their ico sales event, but until now, the token price was dump 100% from their original price, and make many investor loss their money.

Well, probably there are some ICOs that are successful, one of the reason is the money they raised but the main reason is the project itself. Some ICOs were failing because of that fund raising money, too. The teams sometimes are just using ICO to collect money and will disregard the project afterwards

Many ICO projects fail because they cannot raise funds. Now many investors are hesitant to invest in ICO. And this fundraising is very important because to develop the project so that it can be successful. Although there are some projects that do not use ICO. Because the project already has very large funds.

money collected in ico does not determine the success of the ico, like shivomp in 3 days their ico sold out but now their coins in the market are very cheap far from the price of ico

But all the projects collected their hard cap got success?

It doesn't determine the success but having enough funds to run the project is also important.

depends on the project,.. whether they reached their respected Softcap and Hardcap still on the hands of the developer team..some projects doesn't have ICO but still manage to maintain the project

Fundraising I think it is very important for ICO companies because the funds are to run the project. And now many projects have difficulties in raising funds. But now the main market conditions are rising. And I think this will have an impact on the ICO project.

Projects who have really good intentions with this industry, will be able to work with developing the project they've created, with or without ico funds they knew that everything will turned to a successful projects and investors will start to buy in and support the coin.

That's current some good project collection of collected funds for a success project their how needed. Actually it depends on the basis of project development. Trying all the investors to make good quality currency so here they do not blame for support. In fact it is very difficult ICO fund connect for the unless project.

- in my opinion no longer, some projects managed to raise tens of millions of dollars but a lot of them went with investors' money or even they didn't care to do anything that caused prices to continue falling
- not all projects can develop with their own funds
- most of them still need ico

Raising a huge amount of fund or not does not determine the success of a project.
A successful project must be able to survive for long in the crypto space with an appreciable growth rate, which in most cases must be organic and a maintained level of volume, which should also be consistent.

Softcap is very important in any project if they are funded it means that they can create the platform, the roadmap and create value on their token, and between Satoshi and Vitalik, only Vitalik created an ICO, in fact, he is the grandfather of the ICO.

There is an obvious example of such a project is ATHERO. as the team said they collected 27 million and now this project is dead

Reaching their target fund either soft cap or even hard cap is already a success in their part as they can proceed with their development because they already have the money to fund their expenses. But it is only the beginning of their project as the success of their project will really depend to the end result once their platform is already live.

If they can reach their target on time and they can provide satisfaction to their customers. That is the time that we can say that their project is successful.
Fund raiser is not necessity but for those organization or individual that wants to proceed with their project without money then fund raising is necessity in order to proceed.

Vitalik did not create ICO. Vitaly created the basis for an ICO to be possible. Vitalik is a very great figure in cryptocurrency world, but I think that the last year was very bad for him

Unfortunately, now ICO means practically nothing. Bright promising projects with a good reputation of the team, as a rule, already have their investors and some kind of finished product. But for further development requires much more. Therefore, the main issue is the trust and knowledge of the organizers.
Since most of the ICOs were originally created only to enrich the developers themselves, there is a small chance of a successful fundraising.

We are talking about ICO projects, of course, fundraising is needed. With funds collected, this is used for the development of the ICO project. But there are projects that do not use ICO. However, this project certainly has very large funds to develop the project.