One of the best things that I found on the bitcointalk. Thank you for all the information that you added here. It is very helpful.
I think that nowadays it is hard to find a good ICO. Too many scams out there. Therefore I don't invest in ICOs. Until now I didn't found something worth my time and money.
But I suppose that if you find a good ICO, it could be a good thing to invest. It requires a lot of reading and researching.
One way to reduce the amount of reading is to use filters. Use the filters that I suggested, or come up with your own. They should quickly filter out most of the ICOs. Then, there should be only a handful of ICOs that pass your filters. With these, you can read their website more in depth or their white paper. |
|
|
|
Do your own homework - read reviews. I haven't looked at most of the coins on your list, but I have looked at a few and I think those have significant flaws which I wrote about in this thread: ARToken LAToken (inference from write up of Swarm) Change Bank (and Bankera) TokenStars |
|
|
|
Hi Henry, If funders can guide the company, then most companies would be soliciting their shareholders for input, because this is much cheaper than paying market research companies. But companies don’t do this for good reason. The most difficult part for startups is getting HONEST answers. The last people that they should solicit input from, are their friends and family. These people will NOT tell the truth, because they do not want to hurt the founder’s feelings or discourage the founder. The most important answer that all startups should seek, but they rarely do, is: “Your startup SUCKS and will FAIL”. It is actually very difficult to get this input because most people do not want to offend the founder. But this answer is critical. If is much better that the startup gets this answer, so they can pivot or cancel their startup to save a ton of time and money for everyone. What happens quite often is that startups will ask people, including acquaintances, what do they think of their product? Instead of getting “it STINKS and will FAIL”, they’ll get “well…if this was changed this way…it might have potential…I may not use it, but maybe other people will use it…”. They do this because they want to be nice or courteous to the founder. So, the startup continues working on it when they should be abandoning it. The only people who will tell the TRUTH are potential customers who are told to part with their money. They will say “There’s no way I’m paying $5 for that!” Not only do you need to ask potential customers, you need to get answers from total strangers who are not answering questions to you. Let’s say you are standing on the street asking strangers this question: “I’m thinking of selling Japanese seaweed snacks. Will you buy some?” Some strangers will not want to offend you. They will be nice and courteous and say “Hmmm, I don’t know. Thanks anyway.” or “Maybe, but I’m in a rush.” or “Wow, that’s new. Never heard of it. I don’t know if I would buy them, but I’ll keep an eye out for it the next time I’m at the store.” What you want is the truth. You want them to say: “No, I would never buy that.” That’s why companies hire market research companies to ask strangers: “Company ABC is thinking of selling Japanese seaweed snacks. Would you buy any?” This takes the pressure off the strangers and lets them be more honest. The other problem with asking friends, family and acquaintances is that most people try to answer even when their answer should be: “I don’t know”. With some people I know, they will never answer “I don’t know”. They’ll guess at the answer. I don’t want guesses. I want to hear “I don’t know” if they don’t know. If your startups ask your YUPIE token holders for input, there is the real danger that your token holders will do one of the following: - Not tell the truth in fear of hurting anyone’s feelings
- Compelled to give input when he has no answer to the question, which is really garbage input. If your startup asks “How much would you pay for Japanese seaweed snacks?” Most of your token holders should say “I don’t know”. But I guarantee you that a significant percentage will make up an answer.
|
|
|
|
Just want to open it up and ask people what there favourite cryptos are so far,
Personally I have been surprised by Bankera, I bought into the pre ICO and every week they have been paying the ETH
commissions into my wallet, also looking forward to Electroneum and BQX......
You may be getting commissions now, but in the long run, they may not be worth anything. According to this poll, the majority of people do not agree with the idea "Bitcoin bank": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1652815.2160There are other flaws with crypto banks. When searching for ICOs, read: 3 kinds of ICOs - Protect Yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2243157.0 |
|
|
|
"SEC Committee Lashes Out at Bitcoin and ICOs" https://www.coindesk.com/obvious-bubble-sec-committee-lashes-bitcoin-icos/"My sense is that most of the conversation that goes on around this is essentially designed to obscure. [It] uses big ideas and technical jargon to evade fundamental questions that should be asked in this institution about any investment product." "...growing incidences of fraud." There are legitimate ICOs that make sense and that the blockchain can help. You just have to do more work to filter out the scams and crap to find them. |
|
|
|
I think not only airdrop, ICO is also a possibility of a scam, because too many ICOs are popping up, but as much as we can see the project plan,whether the project will be sustainable,or just a scam project.we can see how the process of a project runs,whether many investors come in, if it's an ICO.but if it's just an airdrop I do not think we need to put our money to buy airdrop coins even though that's good, because that possibility only lasts a moment.be careful in cryptocurrency.
Ethernem is another scam airdrop. In regards to ICOs, read: 3 kinds of ICOs - Protect Yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2243157 |
|
|
|
|
There are scams with airdrops as well.
They are free, but many will become worthless as well.
Ethernem claims to be the NEM on Ethereum. This is misleading. It's simply an ERC-20 token on Ethereum, that will do nothing.
|
|
|
|
It's not just scams. Another problem is with crap ICOs. These are ICOs that are not necessarily trying to scam, but they have flawed ideas, or they are clued out about the limitations of the blockchain. Because so many people want to host ICOs, they are putting anything and everything onto the blockchain. Most of these won't work. However, investors are not aware of their flaws. Read: 3 kinds of ICOs - Protect Yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2243157 |
|
|
|
Somebody recommended Coinloan. If people will need to send their money to a centralized place, in order for it to be loaned out, then this is high risk, as this creates a honey-pot for hackers and employees to steal. Think of Mount Gox, DAO and the many exchanges that have lost money. According to this poll, the majority of people do not agree with the idea "Bitcoin bank": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1652815.2160People on this thread recommended Rega Crowdsurance and Swarm. They have significant flaws. Go here to read the short write ups about these ICOs: 3 kinds of ICOs - Protect Yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2243157.0 |
|
|
|
Rega Crowdsurance is trying to mislead you. Their website state: “We all heard about shared economy: people sharing cars, home, bikes, even wi-fi. But why can’t we share our risks and protect each other without insurance companies. We have to pay lots of money because only insurance companies have algorithms for risk assessment, technology and resources.” Currently, few cars and homes are shared. Cars and bikes are parked and unused 90% of the time. Therefore, there is an opportunity to increase utilization by sharing them. This is not applicable to insurance. Risks are already shared with insurance companies. There is no such thing as a risk sitting on your driveway, waiting to be used. When you buy insurance from anyone, you are automatically sharing the risk. The way to reduce the money you pay, is to increase competition. There are already tens of thousands of insurance companies and there are bankruptcies (insolvencies) every year. Google it. They go bankrupt because they are NOT charging the customers enough to cover the risks that the insurer is taking on. This implies that customers can be paying too little already. A crypto currency speeds up and lowers cost for bank wire transfers. A crypto currency eliminates the high cost and multi-day withdrawal from gambling sites. The key to success in insurance is not related to the currency. A new currency does NOTHING for the insured nor does it improve an insurer’s operating costs or COMBINED RATIO, which is one factor to profitability. Their white paper states: “That’s why leveraging our 20 years experience in risk assessment and scoring we are creating REGA Risk Sharing platform - the new standard for insurance market with state-of-art technology that will be available for everyone as a new segment of the shared economy.” Does Rega Crowdsurance think that their 20 years experience in risk assessment is superior to Berkshire Hathaway’s 60 years experience in risk assessment? Even though AIG has 100 years of experience in risk assessment, they almost went bankrupt. What makes Rega Crowdsurance think they know more than anyone else in how much to charge you to insure your car against the next accident? Even if Rega Crowdsurance thinks they know risk assessment, there is another major factor to profitability: KNOWING HOW TO INVEST. Let’s say you are an insurer and you collect $100 million of premiums, which is called the PREMIUM POOL. You won’t have any claims until the next hurricane. What you do with the premium pool is critical. You cannot let it sit there to collect dust. You have to invest it. Where and how are you going to invest it? Quite often, insurance companies lose money from underwriting (risk assessment) and make up the loss from their investments. The majority of profits for Berkshire Hathaway comes from how the premium pool is invested. What makes you think Rega Crowdsurance knows how to invest? Their white paper states: “Compared to traditional insurance, in crowdsurance there are no insurers, intermediaries and brokers, all the processes being controlled and managed by programs and algorithms.” Yes, there are insurers: other users. GEICO has had no intermediaries nor brokers for 70 years. Other insurance companies exist without brokers. If you are a Rega Crowdsurance user, you will be an insurer or insured. If you are an insurer, are you going to go through the hassle of complying with the multitude of state government regulations on insurers? If you are an insured, is the state government going to make sure that Rega Crowdsurance is properly capitalized so that they will have enough to fully reimburse you and all of the insured when your cars are destroyed? Their white paper addresses regulations by stating this: “We ensure regulators to comply with all necessary procedures including identification of platform members, working according to current jurisdiction legislation. Internal policies are designated to prevent and mitigate possible risks of the platform being involved in any kind of illegal activity. REGA Risk Sharing adopts risk-based approach to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The principle is that resources should be directed in accordance with priorities so that the greatest risks receive the highest attention. Upon request of regulating authorities we disclose all information concerning the case, if that information can not be found in public blockchain.” Most of this is verbose. The rest is misleading. Regulations of insurance is not related to illegal activities or money laundering. They are there to make sure that the insurer has enough money to pay all of the claims. Rega Crowdsurance is extremely is extremely high risk, unless it is being started by former executives of GEICO, State Farm, etc. Also, they are in a country without extradition agreements. If they screw you over, they are immune from punishment from your government. This makes them more invulnerable and likely to make any claim they want.
|
|
|
|
there are so many tokens around, that are useless
i think that the only way to stop it is moving on to platforms that regulate the coins that being made
komodo platform will talk with every company that will make a coin on the platform
and ADA protocol, will regulate the tokens that will run on their protocol
i really dont see a future to the ethereum ... its getting out of control with all this eSHIT coins and many other scams that have been born on the ethereum..
People need to educate themselves on ICOs, in order to filter out the scams and crap from the legitimate ICOs. Read: 3 kinds of ICOs - Protect Yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2243157.0 |
|
|
|
Of course, every ICO should have a white paper. Even then, a white paper is only a small factor on whether the ICO is investable. The most important factor is whether they have build something that we can use. Read: 3 kinds of ICOs - Protect Yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2243157.0 |
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I would like to know your opinion about investing in ICO.
And leave a comment below how you inform yourself about the upcoming ICOs.
Greetings.
Read: 3 kinds of ICOs - Protect Yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2243157 |
|
|
|
Zonto is very high risk. Zonto has a business plan. I’ve rarely read a business plan that was so filled with jargon, yet meaningless. It has tons of hard to understand and disconnected features and function. No benefits. After 10 pages, I couldn’t read any more. Maybe they’re onto something, but I couldn’t figure it out. It looks like they grabbed every jargon they can find and threw them into the business plan and white paper, to see what will stick. Their white paper has 14 pages of text. 5 of those are about their ICO and bounty. This tells you where their priority is. They will give ZONTO coins to users for free. Businesses can get ZONTO coins from users (I assume from selling services) and pay Zonto for advertising. From what I can tell, they are in the social network field. This is a high risk project for these reasons: - Google has access to BILLIONS of users and top technologies. Google+ tried to compete against Facebook and they failed. You are dreaming if you think a rag tag group is going to successfully compete against Facebook. Creating a new token does not mean that you will become a competitor to Facebook.
- Even if Zonto gets millions of users, it does not mean it will make a profit. Facebook lost money for most of the first 9 years. For year ending 2013, Facebook made $1.73 profit per user. Twitter is still losing money.
Even if Zonto can miraculously come up with better technology than Google or Facebook, it doesn’t mean it will get lots of users for these reasons: - NETWORK EFFECT. Nobody at Facebook is going to leave their 200 friends to go to Zonto. I’ve seen several ICO projects trying to be the next social network. They are dreaming and most likely will fail. They claim that they will get users because the users will be paid. From whom? The money has to ultimately come from advertisers.
- Monero, PIVX, Zcash, Dash and NEM have better technology than Bitcoin in terms of privacy, lower energy usage and (currently) speed. But people buy Bitcoin because of Brand awareness. Better technology does not always win. There are hundreds of altcoins trying to dethrone Bitcoin and they cannot.
An analogy of losing money for Zonto would mean that they are giving more coins to users than they are receiving from advertisers. This equates to inflation, which equates to devaluation of the coin. So, if Zonto is losing money like Twitter, or Facebook in the first several years, its coin will devalue during that time. If Zonto follows the same EXPLOSIVE path that Facebook had, which would be an absolute miracle, its users will watch their ZONTO coins devalue for 9 years before it starts increasing in value. Would you want to be one of these users? The difference between Twitter and Zonto is that Twitter can always go to the secondary markets and sell more stock to raise capital, in order to pay for its annual losses. Can Zonto do that? Is it going to host an ICO every year? Another problem is on the advertiser side. I assume that the advertiser buys Zonto coins on an exchange, in order to pay Zonto. This adds a layer of hassle for the advertiser that he doesn't have to put up with when he advertises on other sites.
|
|
|
|
How about Genesis Vision mate?
Genesis Vision’s team is from Russia, which does not have extradition agreements with much of the world. This means that if they screw you, there is little you can do. Do not expect the Russian government to extradite the team to your country. They have a nice rating from icorating.com. However, I’ll always have a question in the back of my mind: Did Russia pay off icorating to give a better rating to Genesis Vision? But, I could be wrong. Their project is very specific to forex trading. The team claims to have experience in this in St. Petersburg. I didn’t know that St. Petersburg was a major forex trading center. I would’ve thought of London, New York, Paris or Frankfurt. If you understand forex trading and you think that Genesis Vision can execute, then you should invest. For me, I see the execution to be very difficult. They would need a large budget for marketing and outbound corporate sales force to get forex traders to sign up to their program. If the traders are already performing well and making good money, why would they want prospects (potential clients) to be able to scrutinize them more through Genesis Vision? If I was a forex trader, I would wonder why I would want to sign up to Genesis Vision, in order to be scrutinized by prospects and compared to other traders. Genesis Vision will tell me that I will get more clients. But I will agree only if I’m a better than average trader. If I'm a below average trader, Genesis Vision will show this to all of my clients, which will prompt them to leave me to go to an above average trader. This is what I think will likely happen, though I do not know for sure. Let’s say there are 100 traders in the world. If you are among the top 50 traders, you will sign up to Genesis Vision. If you are among the bottom 50 traders, you will not. Now, there are 50 traders using Genesis Vision. After a while, the bottom 25 traders will drop out because they don’t want prospects to see how they are underperforming. Now, there are 25 traders using Genesis Vision. After a while, the bottom 12 traders will drop out. If this trend continues, there will only be one trader using Genesis Vision. I stopped reading their white paper after this. I do not know for sure that Genesis Vision lacks potential. I do not think they are scamming. I just think they have a flaw in their idea, I don’t see the potential and I think the execution will be difficult. Others may think differently. Maybe the rest of the white paper has good stuff that I didn’t read. Also, I'm not sure why a new token is needed for this. Any competitor can create a similar system and charge clients in USD, EUR, YEN, BTC or ETH. The competitor's pitch can be: "Why bother going through the hassle of getting a new Genesis token that is used only between you and Genesis, when you can simply pay us with USD, EUR, YEN, BTC or ETH? What are you going to do with your Genesis tokens after you get data about your trader? Is it a one time use?" Also, their white paper is very complicated to forex. If you read it all and fully understand their business, then you should invest. Otherwise, reconsider. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
