Are ICOs 2.0 enough to regain trust from investors?

[epiphanyblockchain]

ICOs have lost the blind trust investors had in them. Sure, you could read the project's whitepaper, see how much they care for their community, sometimes even check the technicals in github. But having an good tech team, or outsourcing your community management with great companies like Amazix, does not guarantee that business will be good. Does not even guarantee that the product/service will ever go live.

The big question here is, there is a new wave which some people are calling ICO 2.0 in which projects must have a working prototype before starting crowdfunding.
Do you think this upgrade is enough to regain trust from investors?

 

[elda34b]

It's quite hard to tell, but probably no unless they give good transparency, team, proper token utilities and so on. The hype of ICO is gone, and it's good because there won't be that many scammy projects out there. While it is not a guarantee, the next wave of ICO should be better because regulations will take part to prevent scammer make their own ICO and then exit scam after that.

[rublaj]

ICO are dead even with prototypes. The ICO that are not blatantly scams are simply failed products.

[harizen]

The big question here is, there is a new wave which some people are calling ICO 2.0 in which projects must have a working prototype before starting crowdfunding.
Do you think this upgrade is enough to regain trust from investors?

For output to be seen, it must be executed and pushed.

But for me, why ICO became hype in the first place? Not with the roadmaps, not with the developments, but for the coin price once it get listed on exchange. To triggered that hype, the crypto market must be healthy. The 2018 where bearish trend dominates the whole year slowly pull down the ICO hype.

Bottom line, I believed if bitcoin price will make some hype again and regain it's 2017 momentum, it will bring back all the positive hype and that will include the ICO thing. And yes, another scenario again of scam and shit will happened while at the same time, there will be a chances that some projects will regain investors confidence "but not the same numbers like before".

[KingScorpio]

ICOs have lost the blind trust investors had in them. Sure, you could read the project's whitepaper, see how much they care for their community, sometimes even check the technicals in github. But having an good tech team, or outsourcing your community management with great companies like Amazix, does not guarantee that business will be good. Does not even guarantee that the product/service will ever go live.

The big question here is, there is a new wave which some people are calling ICO 2.0 in which projects must have a working prototype before starting crowdfunding.
Do you think this upgrade is enough to regain trust from investors?

 

the problem aren't icos, the problem is the recognition and indexation of those

[eckmar]

Problem is whole concept of ICOs. 99% of them don't actually need their own token, and everything they are trying to do can be accomplished with BTC/LTC/ETH. As for the ICOs that need tokens and actually use them to their maximum potential, i guess ICO 2.0 would be better if its implemented in a way that they must have working prototype in a first place, and after that money is released on milestones where community vote whether or not money should be released. Already saw a few ICOs doing exactly that and calling themselves ICO 2.0, but I think everyone should be doing that anyway.
Then again, ICOs are meant for masses, which means that regular guys don't want to wait years to profit, they want profit short-term, which could lead to frustration if development is taking a few months more than expected. If a company has a working prototype that actually does something, wouldn't it be better at this point (while market is shit) to just take project to the investors and get funding for startup the regular way ? (This is only if ICO is good, which is hard to impossible lol)

[KingScorpio]

Problem is whole concept of ICOs. 99% of them don't actually need their own token, and everything they are trying to do can be accomplished with BTC/LTC/ETH. As for the ICOs that need tokens and actually use them to their maximum potential, i guess ICO 2.0 would be better if its implemented in a way that they must have working prototype in a first place, and after that money is released on milestones where community vote whether or not money should be released. Already saw a few ICOs doing exactly that and calling themselves ICO 2.0, but I think everyone should be doing that anyway.
Then again, ICOs are meant for masses, which means that regular guys don't want to wait years to profit, they want profit short-term, which could lead to frustration if development is taking a few months more than expected. If a company has a working prototype that actually does something, wouldn't it be better at this point (while market is shit) to just take project to the investors and get funding for startup the regular way ? (This is only if ICO is good, which is hard to impossible lol)

you are an idiot, you want to basically enslave everyone to those crap BTC/LTC/ETH first mover pow crap with that corrupt index of yours, how about you understand the word "decentralisation" more properly

the icos want to create also money out of thin air same like satoshi did with BTC premine, whats wrong with that. currently its this corrupt index run by the bitcoin founders that basically manifests continuous success of the pow trash around bitcoin, but mark my words, this will change.

its not a bear market that crushed bitcoin

there will be new cryptoindexations, that will decentralise market and attention away from the corrupt coinmarketcap index run by bitcoincentrists.

you want proof?

email them and try to list a coin with bigger marketcapitalisation than bitcoin.

because there are quite a bunch of those already in existance.

last stand of bitcoins success is that still existing soft fixation on the cryptoindex of coinmarketcap, and you will not be able to hold it. people will have an interest to decentralise that and create index, that point out their interest and their interpretation of "priority"

[eckmar]

Problem is whole concept of ICOs. 99% of them don't actually need their own token, and everything they are trying to do can be accomplished with BTC/LTC/ETH. As for the ICOs that need tokens and actually use them to their maximum potential, i guess ICO 2.0 would be better if its implemented in a way that they must have working prototype in a first place, and after that money is released on milestones where community vote whether or not money should be released. Already saw a few ICOs doing exactly that and calling themselves ICO 2.0, but I think everyone should be doing that anyway.
Then again, ICOs are meant for masses, which means that regular guys don't want to wait years to profit, they want profit short-term, which could lead to frustration if development is taking a few months more than expected. If a company has a working prototype that actually does something, wouldn't it be better at this point (while market is shit) to just take project to the investors and get funding for startup the regular way ? (This is only if ICO is good, which is hard to impossible lol)

you are an idiot, you want to basically enslave everyone to those crap BTC/LTC/ETH first mover pow crap with that corrupt index of yours, how about you understand the word "decentralisation" more properly

the icos want to create also money out of thin air same like satoshi did with BTC premine, whats wrong with that. currently its this corrupt index run by the bitcoin founders that basically manifests continuous success of the pow trash around bitcoin, but mark my words, this will change.

its not a bear market that crushed bitcoin

there will be new cryptoindexations, that will decentralise market and attention away from the corrupt coinmarketcap index run by bitcoincentrists.

you want proof?

email them and try to list a coin with bigger marketcapitalisation than bitcoin.

because there are quite a bunch of those already in existance.

last stand of bitcoins success is that still existing soft fixation on the cryptoindex of coinmarketcap, and you will not be able to hold it. people will have an interest to decentralise that and create index, that point out their interest and their interpretation of "priority"

Lol, I don't have anything against other cryptos that are actually useful. Why the fuck would we need another token that does absolutely nothing Each exchange has its own token for for example and now I have to use their shit If I want to use their service ? Bitcoin and ETH brought something new, look at IOTA for example. Thats a good coin and I would love if people actually took time to make more useful/revolutionary stuff like that. Because of people with your mentality out of 2000 coins/tokens we have atm, 10 are actually worth something others are shitcoins and thats the sad truth that you will have to face. Do some reading/research instead of trying to make quick buck out of shitcoins and you will maybe understand what I'm talking about 

[carlfebz2]

The big question here is, there is a new wave which some people are calling ICO 2.0 in which projects must have a working prototype before starting crowdfunding.
Do you think this upgrade is enough to regain trust from investors?

For output to be seen, it must be executed and pushed.

But for me, why ICO became hype in the first place? Not with the roadmaps, not with the developments, but for the coin price once it get listed on exchange. To triggered that hype, the crypto market must be healthy. The 2018 where bearish trend dominates the whole year slowly pull down the ICO hype.

Bottom line, I believed if bitcoin price will make some hype again and regain it's 2017 momentum, it will bring back all the positive hype and that will include the ICO thing. And yes, another scenario again of scam and shit will happened while at the same time, there will be a chances that some projects will regain investors confidence "but not the same numbers like before".

Trust and positive views towards crypto market has been gone already when the market crashed from ATH upto this moment.You are right that everything was dragged after that
bubble burst in 2017 and the rest of 2018 becomes bearish and so as with that ICO hype and I don't see for someone in able to make a prototype before making a crowdfunding.No project owners would risk out.

[KingScorpio]

Problem is whole concept of ICOs. 99% of them don't actually need their own token, and everything they are trying to do can be accomplished with BTC/LTC/ETH. As for the ICOs that need tokens and actually use them to their maximum potential, i guess ICO 2.0 would be better if its implemented in a way that they must have working prototype in a first place, and after that money is released on milestones where community vote whether or not money should be released. Already saw a few ICOs doing exactly that and calling themselves ICO 2.0, but I think everyone should be doing that anyway.
Then again, ICOs are meant for masses, which means that regular guys don't want to wait years to profit, they want profit short-term, which could lead to frustration if development is taking a few months more than expected. If a company has a working prototype that actually does something, wouldn't it be better at this point (while market is shit) to just take project to the investors and get funding for startup the regular way ? (This is only if ICO is good, which is hard to impossible lol)

you are an idiot, you want to basically enslave everyone to those crap BTC/LTC/ETH first mover pow crap with that corrupt index of yours, how about you understand the word "decentralisation" more properly

the icos want to create also money out of thin air same like satoshi did with BTC premine, whats wrong with that. currently its this corrupt index run by the bitcoin founders that basically manifests continuous success of the pow trash around bitcoin, but mark my words, this will change.

its not a bear market that crushed bitcoin

there will be new cryptoindexations, that will decentralise market and attention away from the corrupt coinmarketcap index run by bitcoincentrists.

you want proof?

email them and try to list a coin with bigger marketcapitalisation than bitcoin.

because there are quite a bunch of those already in existance.

last stand of bitcoins success is that still existing soft fixation on the cryptoindex of coinmarketcap, and you will not be able to hold it. people will have an interest to decentralise that and create index, that point out their interest and their interpretation of "priority"

Lol, I don't have anything against other cryptos that are actually useful. Why the fuck would we need another token that does absolutely nothing Each exchange has its own token for for example and now I have to use their shit If I want to use their service ? Bitcoin and ETH brought something new, look at IOTA for example. Thats a good coin and I would love if people actually took time to make more useful/revolutionary stuff like that. Because of people with your mentality out of 2000 coins/tokens we have atm, 10 are actually worth something others are shitcoins and thats the sad truth that you will have to face. Do some reading/research instead of trying to make quick buck out of shitcoins and you will maybe understand what I'm talking about  

well the usability of a token depends on its information hack and the bribery to the indexmafia, the current setting will in my oppinion crush the entire system altogether.

apropo ICOs dead, CPRO isnt Death, its allive as always and it had 0% losses during Bearmarket.

indexmafia is still not listening cpro because its design and stability it still more than 4 times the marketcapitalisation of ethereum and would be instantly rank2 of coinmarketcap

[epiphanyblockchain]

I also think that one of the problems is the actual usability of the token. Talking about utility tokens, they usually pretend to be utility when they are obviously acting as security. Projects sell as utility to stay out of legal troubles, but the real reason reason people even take a look at them, let alone buy them, is to sell them a few days or months later to get some profit out of it. So I agree that most tokens don't need a utility token. It's super inconvenient having to buy a different token every time you want to access a certain product or service. Plus having to consider price fluctuations, listings, etc. when you need to buy that utility token.
The truth is that the model ICOs (referring to the ones using utility tokens specially) are using (with market caps, limited number of tokens, etc.) does not fit them. The way I see it, this model is suitable for coins. I don't think they are very suitable for non-financial products/services.
I think we can all agree that the reason why people buy crypto or tokens, is to make money. So if we are using it as a financial service (similar to bonds or stocks), why do we keep trying to make it work as if it was a consumer product.

I believe that if projects developing utility tokens want to go the complex way, in which people need to first get exposure to the project, then they like the product, then they go to an exchange, buy the token, then use it to access the service, and in parallel use this token for trading and profiting, it will never become mainstream. The question is, do we want it to become mainstream? Clearly project owners do. They are in the business to make profit, and the more users they have, they more profits they get. Maybe some early users want it to stay they way it is, or like some exchanges are doing, start promoting brokerage service to try to get more people into it. Make the whole system as friendly as possible.

I think we are in a place right now where big decisions have to be made regarding ICOs. In the mean time, I see STOs as a more logical approach.