Bitcoin Forum

Edit on April 4 2019

Sorry for having two similar posts, please ignore this one and refer to the main discussion thread instead:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126845.msg50405773#msg50405773

Details: I originally made two posts under Economics section and the main Bitcoin Discussion section. But both were moved (admittedly reasonably) by mods to this Altcoin Discussion section. I don't feel like deleting this thread because it would be rather rude to the contributors here. So I'm just leaving this to sink below other posts.

Many thanks,
Max

========== Original Post Below ==========

Hi folks, I'm Max, a university research student currently studying the economic incentives for participating in ICOs. The research is at a pretty early stage, so this is really more like a random chat than a serious discussion.

So, how do you evaluate the worth of some new coins? Is your strategy in participating in ICOs affected by any particular information?

For example, there are coins that had been identified as similar to currencies, shares (securities), and of course, unique utility tokens. Is your decision heavily influenced by these?

For now just forget about it. Check how many coins are listed on CMC and find how many of them are gaining some decent growth like it was somewhere in 2017.
The only thing that can help you with such investments is only a hype.
There is some of examples based on my own experience:
1. There was a Docademic (MTC token) ICO that was heavily endorsed by McAffee. During that time it got a decent exchange listing and a good pump. But then everything turned into shit (as it supposed to do).
2. During TV-TWO ICO they had no endorsers but shortly after ICO they released their app. TTV token trading volume is still very close to zero despite they have an app that pays people with TTV.

On the first case I got some good money from their bounty and almost nothing from TTV bounty. Now both tokens are traded under ICO price.
It is impossible to estimate the true value but you can earn only on hype.

Hi Max, why did you write the same thread twice?  ???

Somehow some of my decisions are affected by the ones who shills for the team. If I see there is a known individuals in their advisors or if the people in the forum are engaging real discussions which sparks interest of more users, it will definitely make me learn more about the project and not just depend to what I think the project is. By learning all the discussions, I may download the whitepaper eventually and read it all. I think Utility tokens are much preferred.

Yeah, personally I agree with you. Valuing tokens in ICOs, or just cryptocurrencies is really tough. But just for the sake of researching, or in hopes of providing some decision support should more cryptocurrencies show up in large numbers, I'll study it a bit more XD

And thanks a lot for the examples!


Erm, yeah, sorry. I made two posts under two different sections (Economics and Bitcoin Discussion), but they both got moved here (Altcoin Discussion), so I'm just leaving this to sink down now XD


Well, now that you've mentioned it, this is a really decent way. No one in the other (and somehow identical) discussion mentioned this.
("The other one": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126845.msg50405773#msg50405773)

Thank you very much indeed for your input!

Once the coin or the token is not yet available in the market, then you can never know the true worth of the token but you can only assume and the assumption you make is based on the team behind the project, are they creating a good hype for the project or are there just little users who made purchase of the coin/token, you can also check to see if airdrop was given because that is one way the value of coins/token are being devalued.

Please checkout my ICO, www.deylandra.net

It actually does something useful.

Reduces the cost of food by 50% by allowing people to cook from home and sell it to their neighbors.

Home cooked meals are superior to restaurant food.

The ICO rating sites help but it may be corrupted, they even ask for fees t o get listed  on their website. If they don't pay, rhey are not listed and not get wider users seeing the ICO project. And then not listed on ICO ratings are somehow not good because ICO sites asks for KYC from the team. If the team doesn't submit, there must be  something wrong.

Given the facts that ICO's are not delivering, we do need to analyze how well the project can deliver, the team behind, the product that it might cater and the usage that will be offer for the industry, analyzing projects is a tough call, bacause even those good looking projects also didn't performed well after moving out from the ICO stage.

You have to be more selective and be in a depth study, avoid participating with projects who offers unbelievable and too  ambitious outcome.