Bitcoin Forum

Project fails because:
1: team failed to follow the whitepaper
2: a member of the team harms the project development process by making an exit scam
3: external attack from hackers
4: bad market forces etc,
Ethereum blockchain came as a savior to the scalability problems faced with the Bitcoin network, and ever since then a lot of coins have come and gone. Going through my old wallet today I stumbled on some old and dead coins which at a time promised to offer so many good features and solve real-time problems but at this moment their nowhere to be found and are dead and gone with all the good ideas behind those projects. Some of which can solve some services issues faced in the industry today and this made me ask this question, which of the old projects will you like to see coming back again to achieve its original project idea to solve some issues facing the cryptocurrency industry at the moment and why do you want to see them back identify the real-time problem that coin can solve.

^ Top altcoins do place up themselves on the peak rank for a reason and that includes ETH. Anything that does have some significant application and utility will really simply getting that kind of recognition in the community but not all does have the same utility or function yet there are even top coins in the market doesnt really able to follow up their roadmap which is epic fail but surprisingly
they are still getting sufficient support and engagement in the community but in overall i dont really see the relevance of it but lets just go along with the flow.

You are probably talking about coins that launched prior 2017. If that's the case then they could have made a comeback in the last cycle's bullrun. I don't want any dead projects back. Why? Because they were dead for a good reason. Rebranding could work but only if people still remembers them. I doubt that would be the case fpr old projects since there are hundreds that pops out every day or every week.

I can't say which one it caused by mostly of dead projects were only imitating one to the each other. If you are seeing the market correctly and then when the project dead and there would be another project that is still exist in the market become a backup for the dead project.
So, recycling the dead project will never work especially when it already tagged by majority of investors as scam project. This can't be called as modernizing the old project but i prefer to call that as an effort to revive the old project.
That means if you wanna try to revive it

Until now, I still find even those who are still in the development stage for a marketing. If this is a means to refresh and increase their turnover in regenerating it's legal. Outside the ethereum network I often encounter it.

indeed some of these aspects can affect the course of the project that is being built.

you're right, Smart contrack was introduced on the ethereum network and was phenomenal since it was introduced. I've known it since 2020 maybe it's not too late.
I support any efforts in redeveloping developers, but I personally prefer a new project with a new whitepaper (if that's potential).

Ypu are thinking about it too much.  Most every coin or project fails because they were never meant to succeed.  Most of the time it's the same people cash grab and start a new one.  People need to stop chasing greed and these projects will go away.

Maybe I should give it a break and stop thinking too much, but again we must know that not all altcoins are shit coins and not meant to go far, yeah we have seen so many recycling teams coming up with scam projects but then we can scrap out the legit few among them who suffer similar faith with the scammy one but in different ways and mostly because of no fault of theirs, should we now neglect their development. I don't have any coin in mind anyways.

It won't work because once the name of the project got red-flagged it won't gain another trust again and those who were with the project in its early stages, will prevent the others to invest in it. That's why most of the time they will just renew everything because it's easy to promote the project that way rather than fixing the old one. Right now the choices are huge in numbers and coming up with a new idea with a new team will make it more likable to the investors.

Mostly of tokens failed caused by they were scam. there's no need to make it alive again. If you can create a new project with neutral reputation and why should you use the old one that has owned a very bad reputation in the crypto? this is a problem for you. I meant you need to hardwork to make sure if you will able to clean the repuation of project. This is something that can't be done easily. You are picking a hardway if you are using the old project with bad reputation.
All of dead projects were coming from the bad behavior by its developers and it was also affecting the trust from the users as well.

I have seen one good project with a good developer team but their main problem came from their marketing team.
Discord and Telegram groups should be handled with care. Let your investors criticize you to improve the project and not kick them away, ban them, or whatever negative reaction to what they say.
Now, that project that I am talking about is going to the trash because the supporters are gone and most are kicked out. That's not how it should be.
This is the modern-day, critics will always be around but that doesn't mean they are spreading FUD because it's their money that's on the line.

It is already a known fact that many ICOs in the crypto world were failed. There's no need for recreating another project with a name that already has a very bad reputation. Before you create anything new, it is best to clean up the old one with neutral reputation that could be appealing to investors!! It depends on how you do it. If you have a plan to make the token alive again, if it has failed because of scam, then you need to make sure that you can make it fixed. If there's no problem with it, then of course don't use that old token again

IEO, IDO and so many today have positioned lot of project in a very big chances to succeed. Then there were many projects with good concepts but with bad intentions scammers were providing all necessary information to run the marketing, promised all their good tidying about the project without knowing their purposes after they hits the certain amounts they projected on its leads to automatically folding/shorting down websites either for no reason. Some could say website update or rebranding, they will locked their telegram group so none could be able to contact them or to question them for their actions. I could also remembered then lot of project refused to reveal their team members which was a very slim chance for them to succeed then. But today lot of projects presenting their faces on whitepapers with their media handle for authenticity attracting more investors, coupled with VCs (Voice Chats, Video Calls) gives them more strength than ever., all these features weren't there as well. 

IMO, I believe some of those reasons are true, And the idea of modernizing old projects is good but still, it will not work, without any working products and services to offer and that was already proven many times they should focus first on the project's token utilization to spur demand.

Because what I believe is that the platform's token demand will come from its use cases, the majority of the thriving old projects nowadays have already achieved full utilization of its token, meaning they have successfully offered something attractive like financial services, investments options, staking, etc. to drive token demands and encourage more crypto enthusiast to invest and hold their token.    

There are a lot of reasons why projects fail, some of the ones you posted and others. One main reason is that there was never a solid business usecase from the start. Projects are building blockchains but they have no business customers, only users. This is one reason why I feel safe investing in HBAR and CNDL. HBAR has a couple dozen real enterprises on its governing council (like IBM and Google) and Candle Chain is engineered to host metaverses on top of it. Metaverses are going to be the next wave in crypto, and should pump massively when Facebook META releases its beta later this year.

If they are dead then I don't think there can be revived by the devs themselves obviously. And there's no need to do that unfortunately, others make a fork, but still they didn't get the consensus and support of the community with those supposedly new projects. And maybe they are not good in the first place that's why they didn't survived crypto space which become so saturated in the last 4 years that competition becomes tough. So if your project has no real life usage then it will become a shitcoin and die.

Yeah, OP. You might be overthinking it too much. Sadly many altcoins now are seen as shitcoins due to how short some coins last in the market and sometimes you just gotta suck it up and accept it. It is an unpredictable market in the end plus it is the nature of it so there ain't much we can do about it.
Expect the same for the succeeding years, like another carbon copy of these NFTs claiming to be the "NFT killers".  I even remembered some user in the other thread claiming that if those coins he mentioned are "Ethereum killers". :D

You are right with the development of NFT so many new projects that meet the demands of their users and give the industry some of the services that make cryptocurrency usage acceptable and flexible, I may have not been overthinking things but then again we could still find some good ico projects that can be rebuilt and transformed to fit into the current dispensation.

let us admit the fact that most of these projects have no intentions of surviving long. they are merely created to generate money for the devs or owners. most of them are not even justified to be called as developers. so you can't really count on reviving old projects because most of them have no reason to exist. they have no actual use case and just used as a front to make money. what else can you expect in this market where you can create a money-making coin anonymously and can repeat again and again without being caught?

Only if the developer is still with that token/coin because if its already abandoned then I don’t see any reason to rebuild it again. Those Old projects that fails most probably was not able to catch the demand of the public but since this technology keeps on growing, they can still innovate and adopt the new trend. As we can see, NFTs right now are still doing good and this might be the opportunity for old projects to start over again and follow the trend.

Too many reasons why they fail but there is only one legit reason why got to that situation and that is because they are just scams. Of course, they will tell these things, bla bla blaaa but people will ignore it as they are aware of what really happened to them. Many projects have been created for no specific reason, no use case, questionable developers, transparency - they promise good for the investors but in the long run they will just go and not be active anymore.

There is no need for such transformation, what they need is to develop a project that is usable and has a contribution to the community.

1. There might be a reason on why they didn't follow what is written on the whitepaper. It could be because they lack of funds, and they didn't achieve their quota but they fail on this maybe because the investors didn't like what they are offering.

2. That is why it's important that you know and are familiar on each of your team members especially if they are assigned to hold the funds for the project.

3. Hack's cant be avoided but a project must try hard to build a secure system that won't be easily accessed by hackers.

4. About this one. This is also normal where challenges can come but a strong project can survive these trials no matter what.

It's only part of the expertise possessed by the developer, so there's no need to worry if you don't like it because every developer always tries to make different products every year to compete in terms of marketing with existing products first.

2020 is still not too late for you to know, even though in that year networks such as BSC have begun to be used by many new projects which are also no less potential than projects that have succeeded through the Ethereum network in the past. But the thing to remember is that the potential of a new project will not be known before the project launches its product.

One of the fastest way to know how serious a project is after release is by watching it's roadmap closely, this is after you've make sure the project have good utility, many projects come into this space with empty words, they create good roadmaps but they won't follow up that roadmap, you will see updates of this month in roadmap happening five months later, that's a big red flag.

Yeah, utility is the ultimate motion in the project's success, for a coin to keep it relevant in the market the project need to have a high user base and community support, and some ico project has the underdeveloped utility concept that was forced to stop at some point because of external forces and market conditions. Those are the project I want to see reactivated to meet up with present demands in the cryptocurrency industry.

I understand 4, because the market could be doing terrible and the project may fail. However, as a person who has been here for a decade or so, and been part of dozens of projects, from a very small scale translation stuff, to actually being a co-partner to it as well, I can tell you one thing that ruins all of the projects; centralization.

All of the projects are centralized these days and not only that is a problem but the reality is that investors do want it to be centralized as well, like you could build a project and let it be, but then they will end up with telling you do more, investors will ask the team to improve it, meaning centralization.

This is a frequent problem of young projects. Even though they sometimes offer interesting products, ultra-technological, which are ahead of competitors' products, they still fail. For a variety of reasons:

• Illiterate marketing;
• Inexperience of the team;
• Lack of investors;
• A product too complicated for ordinary users to understand;
• Too narrow a niche,

etc

From my observation experience, I can say that it's easier for teams to create a new coin than to repurpose an old product and adjust it to the new concept, because creating something from scratch is much easier than redoing an old one.

Maybe OP, but it might be hard to find one nor get back the interest of some devs to get their feet wet again due to how bad of a reputation was ICO back around 2017. Those days were still amazing not gonna lie and I would go back to those glorious days if I had to for those ICOs. Too bad that scammers/scumbags brought the market into crap.

You have a good point there the way the project ended previously has a big deal and the reputation is what will set the project make it the first choice among other new projects who can offer similar services and be able to build a new brand effortlessly instead of renewing an old bad project.

Unfortunately, there are too many projects that fail as well that people claim scam. Some projects are not just scams, they aim at nothing to scam, I was part of a project like that. The team ended up getting absolutely no money at all, it was like few thousand dollars which all went to marketing and going bigger, and then one day a huge 50k happened, and that was a great amount for us, which was still nothing in the grand scheme of the project making world, what happened?

We spent that on listings, got listed, didn't get traded, got delisted, all money gone, and we just died. Failure, but we lost money on it and not made any money at all.

A lot of factors can contribute to the failure of a project and what you mentioned is one of such factors but that is classified under external factors, this is so because before a project make it to the market the team should have made all the necessary arraignment that will aid the smooth running when the finally goes public.

Not one of them, if the coin is dead or long been dead and they are making a comeback expect them to suffer the same thing like lack of support and poor activity coming from developers, there are investors who lose their money from investing from these dead coins if they want to make a return they should compensate these investors, investors will think that they are going to scam people again so it's better for these dead coins to stay dead.

This is mostly, moreover if they cannot realize their own roadmap, like the development of the projects, listing on exchange schedules. Additionally, the lack of funds also becomes one big problem for a project to rise up and develop. If they cannot gain or collect enough funds, they will easily fall down. On the other hand, sometimes, a team also only focuses on how ways to gain money, much more money to collect, but after getting the money, they don't care enough about the projects and leave the investors and community in the confusion and no project development. This means that the team focus only on the money, not the project.

If that is about the top coins, they still have the chances. But if this only the old coins but they have no development, I don't think they have a chance. They may be dead projects and cannot be lifted up again. No hope for worthless projects.

You may be right just like what we are seeing what is happening with Luna coin swapped to luna 2.0 and since then the coin has been struggling to get to foot on the ground, so many projects that have failed before will not enjoy the support of their community for the second time.
But we still have some old projects with good ideas that could help build the industry but have failed because of other factors outside the team such as the covid-19 pandemic.

I don't think that old projects that have failed will be successful if they are remodeles again, moreover by the same team. It has very small chance even there is still.
If I want to invest, I don't want to out money into this kind of project model. I will prefer to choose projects that have been in the top market, have great trust, and also high volume at least. More researches are also required.

It's also too risky to invest in such a project and of course we don't want to lose money just like that,
as much as possible to reduce risk by investing in existing and well-developed projects,
so the important thing is not to be in a hurry to make a decision to invest in a project and keep doing research first after all it's important

Even though the possibility of them succeeding is very slim, we can not leave them. out just like that, as I mentioned earlier some of these projects failed not because of their plan but because of external factors that forced them to park up. Recently I started a study and the area of coverage was the blueprints of crypto projects and what scalability problems there are out to solve. To my greatest surprise, I came across several projects with excellent user interfaces that will give cryptocurrency users the best experience, but yet the project is presently on hold due to one of the member developers being sacked and the remaining are afraid of the security of the project to their have to stop.

Perhaps I ought to offer it a reprieve and quit thinking excessively, yet again we should know that not all altcoins are crap coins and not intended to go the distance, definitely we have seen so many reusing groups concocting trick projects however at that point we can scrap out the genuine not many among them who experience comparative confidence with the shifty one yet in various ways and for the most part due to no blame of theirs, would it be advisable for us we presently disregard their turn of events. In any case, I have no coin as a top priority.

Perhaps we should place more priority on rebranding of old and good coin/probecr since the have some level of potential and also good user case that will make them undertook so many aspects of the cryptocurrency environment.

Man old projects are remodeling and cleaning up their codes and acts to suit up to the challenge of New projects. It's the way to go now. Example is introduction of NFTs and DeFi by old projects

Thank you for this reply, a lot of other users have been on negative about old projects and they have written them off as scams. But not all old projects are scams some failed due to one factor or the other, but with the recent developments in the NFTs and metaverse, a lot of remodeling is ongoing. And some projects just rebranded with new code.

Yes, there are lots of aspects to be considered first before concluding that a failed project is a scam. There are just unsuccessful projects especially the ICOs that we had last 2017. There were lots of potential projects before but failed due to some reasons. New projects nowadays are continuously developing and modernizing the metaverse is a visible example.