Bitcoin Forum

Hey guys, I am trying to develop a model to price and score ICOs. I believe this model can potentially help a lot of people. By developing a model that is as objective as possible, I can start to accurately rank and score ICOs. This will help to weed through all of the scams and junk out there. I just wanted to know what are some objective criteria that you use???

The things I can think of so far.

Team- Various objective criteria
Coin- Various objective data like hard cap and discount
Vision- What needs are the project solving
Project Value- which blockchain, status of product, alpha, beta stage etc..
Concerns- competiton
etc...

I appreciate any input! Thanks

Hi. I think, main criterion is idea and mission of project, team and, activity social media of project.

I think there are several criteria but the following matters a lot to me.

1) Gap in current environment - A solution is needed and this ICO is the first to come up with the solution

2) Team members and advisor with previous success - If members or advisors had previous ICO success, thats a good point

3) A MVP or prototype - A minimum viable product or a prototype

These are some criteria that I look for to analyze an ICO.

The  following can help out,ensure you analyse and clearly state  your roadmap and Market target.

I like to do that as well along with talking to the people that are in the project. If they don't know how to do anything then the project is a dud.

Guys, there is excellent thread about it. May be you go to there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2822896.0 ? Author mahe hard work. And all opinions in one place will be better than everywhere

Different users have different criteria in analyzing the ICO success.. Most of the time I give consideration to the real time use of the respective project behind the particular ico.

First of all I am reading about ICO team information, in particular its important to understand how trustworthy they are,or for example how many developers,PR managers,etc they have.If they have enaugh qualification and good PR manager,also how trustworthy are their social pages,programers and other,anyway there are a lot of small details which you need to define because there are a lot of fake projects and it will not be good to lose trust from socity.the idea is not bad if people use it to find ICOs with really good potential.

Look at rating agencies, although they get money for reviews and I wouldn't believe them, they use similar methodology to score ICOs. So, your model is up-to-date , but I would add size of community and brand awareness

In addition to the foregoing, I draw attention to the bounty manager who leads the project. Practice shows that a competent approach to project PR is the key to success.

You have given good analysis on what to check out for before purchasing or participating in an  ICO. Among of points, i would like to add that a coin or an ICO that will success, would have started following her roadmap right from the inception of the project. If there is any bridge in the roadmap, the ICO might likely not succeed.

If they have a person that is willing to stay online pretty much all day then they can get more business. I'd want to see something like that while having something other than a coin.

Ranking a project is subject to the investment needs of an individual but I would say I rank projects n can only invest in them if:

- They have a working product
- Have already existing business
- Ability to fill a missing gap n fulfil needs people didn't think they needed.
- Good marketing head
- Community support (not hypes) etc

There are a lot of discussions on this topic at the forum. I think there should be a smart contract and you need to read the white paper

This is good from cryptorangutang.

https://i.imgur.com/gnflqBh.jpg

as expending use with details of customs with returns from works of the modest examination,
investors might collects with request as gathering numbers with the target on projection as referring the limit as exchanging expends on decision as submitting risks to put with the table of market with the platform.

The more criteria you consider, the better. I usually start with the title of the project, it should be understandable and pleasant to pronounce otherwise the matter will not go far.

Personally, I use indicators such as the team, the level of popularity and the amount that the project wants to collect. Since many projects too many allow themselves, they collect huge sums of money and do nothing

I think the success of an ICO is directly related to team. Also, I think it is a really low possibility that an ICO which has not an innovative idea can be successful. And finally I can say that, good communication is a very important factor.

Before joining an ICO make sure that the project is reliable, efficient and has a good background. Know it's mission and vision which defines it's value and of course the team members and advisor, All these are important in determining if an ICO will succeed.

Good thinking, but I usually to see team, allocation, sales prospects and manager.

A good ICO has an active teamn looking for investors, then a minimum of $ 500,000 allocation, and also do not forget to choosing a manager.

because a good ICO, usually will choose a manager who has positif trust

Comparing ICO's can be beneficial to both cryptocurrency investors as well as the ICO .... People's opinions about different project may be used as a base.

Project vision and the team are the most important things to me, it's good if the project is trying to solve a new problem instead of copying others and the team must have a decent background in order to convince me that they can run the project as they've stated in their roadmap. I also care about the hardcap because it's not good to collect too much money.

First of all it's an idea and mission of project. Secondly, it's a team and advisor, whether they had pevious ICO success. I always read information about team.

I look in what sector the project is working, what are the features and need of the project, team and popularity of project.

this depends on the individual each look, but I think personally, a good ico can be seen from the idea of the project and the most important is the hype of the community, if crowded then most likely many investors will be interested as well

My advice is don't over emphasize Team.
Some projects have all star teams, but their token economy is ridiculous, which makes it uninvestable.

For me I think first and foremost thing to put into consideration is the relevance of the project in solving the immediate and future problems of people cos the projection of the entire blockchain technology is to make the world a better place to live. Second, the team behind the project is as important as the project, cos its the ideas, plans and hardwork of the team will result into the success of the project. Lastly I think community support is also a key factor to consider also.

The first thing I see is their development team, whether they are active to always answer investor questions or not. I also often check the enthusiasm of investors in their telegram group.

If you are looking for ico, look at the effect.ai, token sale stage 2 is now live and if you are interested take some time to research it.

It is a good enterprise that helps people to identify the best ico's.In my opinion Team and the mission of the project is more important for a project. If a team will be more active and constantly work on their project I think it will be big ico .

It is very helpful to check facts such as:
1. Whitepaper- contains the important information regarding the upcoming project and ICO. What are the problems that this project is going to solve?
2. Token- What is the token for? When and How will it be distributed?
3. The team- Who are the team members? What are their experiences in crypto? The projects they have been involved and the impact?
4.  ANN Thread of this forum- Bitcointalk is the biggest forum for Bitcoin and other cryptos.

The standard I use for analyzing the ICO is what is the team that formed the project, the project team and the content of the project. A potential ICO project will be a project founded on experienced people who have breakthrough ideas that can appeal to everyone. I think this is the standard for my analysis of ICO projects

Take note : I am not an investor but as a bounty hunterthe criteria i always check before partipating in a bounty campaigns are : How much is the total allocation of the bounties from the total supply ?, the one who is managing their ann thread in the forum, the platform/s where it is going to be listed or partnered with, the team and the developers behind the creation of their projects, and lastly, i always check their social media sites whether they are updated or not, if not i will going to quit in their bounty campaigns right away.

The basis of choice is a fundamental analysis. If you decide to engage in fundamental analysis, as a result, you will have your own set of rules for decision-making. Do not try to get a ready algorithm or a rigid scheme. This is not science, but, rather, art. As for my personal experience, there is nothing more important than the aspect of communication. The most reliable way is to look at how the developer builds communication with potential investors. Is he professional enough in the field of his proposal.

Normally what I do is I read their Whitepaper. Because by reading the whitepaper we get the whole idea about the project and we get all the information in the Whitepaper. Like Technical Details, Legal Information, Team Information and Road Map so all in one. So its better to read the Whitepaper and you will get the whole Idea about the ICO.

Sometimes it can be fake !
I have my own local coin that they using parliamentarian as their team that form the project.
After reporter confirm this, that parliamentarian has not join any cryptocurrency project because he against bitcoin.

Of course the project want build their reputation in haste so they include parliamentarian on their team !

Among all these, i would believe that

Team- Various objective criteria
Coin- Various objective data like hard cap and discount
Vision- What needs are the project solving
Project Value- which blockchain, status of product, alpha, beta stage etc..
Concerns- competiton
etc...

I am more towards possibility of success and how far it can go
First of all
Team is kinda important because you can see if their background is just Business based or they are some Technology enthusiast.
Next, Hardcap is one of my concern because i would prefer coins with lower HCap because IMO they don't need that much
Vision must be reliable and realistic
Finally, Blockchain selected is important because each have different pros and cons in terms of scaling, framework and structure

I attach great importance to the usefulness of the project. If, in my opinion, the idea repeats itself, or it is absolutely utopian or useless, I pass by. Project estimates are also important. The higher the rating of people who are engaged in scrupulous analysis, the greater the confidence in the product.

I don't use criteria anymore, and that isn't because I hop into every ICO. To me if the coin actually is a viable solution to what we have now, how come we can't airdrop and build a community around it? I prefer this method of distribution, and see no need for ICOs other than grabbing money from newbies.

my model is:
 the purpose of the project;
 the decision of the put purposes;
 command;
 alpha and beta versions of the project;
and probably the main means for implementation.

I think your criteria is perfectly fine to weight any ico and its rating. I myself invested in VLB token and weighted the ICO on these paramters. I found they have a great team to work with and have a great vision for the future too. Their token sale also looks good as their capital requirement completely suits up with their project expectations.

The criteria normally for good ICO are  the content of the white paper, is it a concept that is achievable? what is the product that the team tends to established and who are the project team members and what experience do they have, have any of them been involved in any similar project were they successful? After you research and you are satisfied with the outcome then go ahead and invest in that ico.

I am see that VLB has unique concept in Auto Industry, but i dont know how ICOBench has given under 4 Score.
In 2018 many Project based on automotive, we can see Cube with their Autonomous Car, and it makes investors attract and spend on that project.

The first thing imho its the idea itself. It should be the idea that may become real. Then comes the team with or without MVP. And the rest at the end:)

I rely on many factors, can be as follows:
The most important first is the idea of ??the project is new or not? Overlap with previous projects?
Next is their dev team is really good and reliable. Who are their partners? How long does it take?
How does their community support it? and updates on their media channels

The project must try to solve a problem which cannot be solved by Bitcoin or any of the other existing cryptocurrencies. If this is not the case, it is most likely a gimmick-scam of sorts. Even if it's not technically a scam, it may be most likely an unnecessary project.

Now this doesn't mean it cannot be lucrative. Confidence and marketing goes a long way. A well marketed product can bring huge profits, even if it's not really revolutionary or gamechanging, so if you are here for pure profit, research the project and the marketing team.

Well I am also new in ICO investing and just invested in 2 very successful ICO’s but ended up in loss... one of them was trade.io was very hyped and generated good funding in the ICO but don’t know why It just keep going down after entering exchanges...I think doesn’t matter how much you analize the ICO but you need some luck as well so good luck

First of all, Do you know what is the real of essence of ICO in the first place. ICO is for an initial funding for the start up project so without this kind of funding then a project will never be started especially if the devs team is not financially capable to start a project. Airdrop is a good way to distribute free tokens in different people but airdrop is use too by the devs to scam. Giving free tokens and then once listed on the exchange. OFC there will be a liquidity because of airdrop hunter selling their tokens which is what other newbie investor mistakenly saw as it's​ an active trading. Once the price pump due to newbie investors then the devs will dump their pre-mine coin and abandoned the project. There is so many history just like this one. So Airdrop alone is a big no.