ICO vs No ICO?

[IntraCoin]

I'm trying to decide whether to have an ICO or not. Here are the Pros and Cons

Have ICO:

PROs
- Can raise money for the company
- Less risk for company

CONs
- Coin will likely have less value
- Coin will likely tank as soon as listed on exchange due to investors taking profits
- HODLers will have to HODL longer to make good returns


No ICO:

PROs
- Less work as I wouldn't have to build out a site, code crowdsale (even though it's already done), wouldn't have to market
- Coin could be worth more as I could establish value by purchasing assets before being listed on exchange.
- Can manage the roll-out of coins to be sold on market as everyone would have to buy coins from me initially.
- Coin would have more stability and likely be less volatile
- People wouldn't lose value due to whales and bounty hunters taking profits immediately.

CONs
- More risk for company as I may not earn enough through sale of tokens on exchange.
- Company will likely raise less money overall.


That's as far as I could get. Writing it all down and basing it solely on the number of pros vs cons it would seem to go the non-ico route. However, the weight of the fact of not raising enough money is serious enough to still consider having an ICO. If I establish value, but no one buys the token once listed on the exchange, the company can't progress. Making it worthless anyway and those who sold me the assets would lose. It would seem the wisest way to go about things is to have a crowdsale even though we know people will sell-off immediately. I'm thinking at this point of experience, most of us are aware of this anyway and will wait a bit to buy right after the exchange listing.... but again, lol, if not enough people invest into the ICO the company is at a stand-still, (even though I don't need much to finalize and run the company).

What do you guys think? I think I'm over-analyzing this.

[frowsiter]

Those are good points and off course your No ICO analysis is good as well.

However this is crypto space and it completely void when new coin is formed. To be frank they do need lot of money to work on the prototypes, real modelings, and further products and services development. When ICO is offered they are actually from the companies which starts with scratch. So the only funding source that they get is the ICO.

Even with the real world IPO concept is very popular when it comes to the setting up of start u businesses. IPO is just Initial Public Offering where company proved stocks with very tiny rates.

So you can imagine why ICO is important as well as it could be confusing too.

[BrewMaster]

ICO is only good if you (as the developer) want to make some auick money without doing much and then going away to next one.

No ICO:
PROs
- Coin could be worth more as I could establish value by purchasing assets before being listed on exchange.

wrong. it would be worth more only if you advertise it more and pump it initially.
OR
if you are creating a really unique cryptocurrency that can interest people enough to actually buy it because they know it is a useful coin not just another altcoin being added to thousands of already existing coins!

- Can manage the roll-out of coins to be sold on market as everyone would have to buy coins from me initially.

if by this you mean a pre-mined altcoin then your project loses a lot of its value right here...

- Coin would have more stability and likely be less volatile

that is not something that you can control with or without ICO. even bitcoin (which is the biggest of all by a big margin) is not stable.

CONs
- More risk for company as I may not earn enough through sale of tokens on exchange.
- Company will likely raise less money overall.

the only thing i can say is this: Satoshi is a billionaire and he never premined bitcoin and he never ran an ICO. what he did was that he created a useful thing and worked on it to grow it more.

[IntraCoin]

Those are good points and off course your No ICO analysis is good as well.

However this is crypto space and it completely void when new coin is formed. To be frank they do need lot of money to work on the prototypes, real modelings, and further products and services development. When ICO is offered they are actually from the companies which starts with scratch. So the only funding source that they get is the ICO.

Even with the real world IPO concept is very popular when it comes to the setting up of start u businesses. IPO is just Initial Public Offering where company proved stocks with very tiny rates.

So you can imagine why ICO is important as well as it could be confusing too.

Awesome point, but that's what makes my situation different. I already have not just the prototype but the business is functional. I'd be having the ICO for expansion.

[IntraCoin]

ICO is only good if you (as the developer) want to make some auick money without doing much and then going away to next one.

This is correct if it's a pump and dump. This isn't, and 7 months of non-stop developing has gone into this already. Not exactly quick money, and more work needs to be done.

No ICO:
PROs
- Coin could be worth more as I could establish value by purchasing assets before being listed on exchange.

wrong. it would be worth more only if you advertise it more and pump it initially.
OR
if you are creating a really unique cryptocurrency that can interest people enough to actually buy it because they know it is a useful coin not just another altcoin being added to thousands of already existing coins!

Price per coin is dictated by the seller of the coin. Volume is dictated by the interest of the coin. Low volume usually = lower price. What I was saying, if there is no ICO and I market it and then release it into the wild, everyone would have to buy the coins from me at whatever price I set. The coin has competition as it's a rewards coin, but it has advantages over the others. The problem that all rewards coin face is this... USING THEM. Who is accepting the coin? Before I go live, whether it's ICO or not, I'm going to build relationships with companies that will promise to accept it as payment first. This will really stand out form the others.

- Can manage the roll-out of coins to be sold on market as everyone would have to buy coins from me initially.

if by this you mean a pre-mined altcoin then your project loses a lot of its value right here...

That completely depends on the utility of the coin. To save a debate here I'll just leave it at that. But I will say this POS coins are preferred. 

- Coin would have more stability and likely be less volatile

that is not something that you can control with or without ICO. even bitcoin (which is the biggest of all by a big margin) is not stable.

It is absolutely something you can control. USDT is a great example of that. So is BNB. Even apart from those, there are other ways to regulate volatility once a coin is initially listed on an exchange, and that is what I'm talking about. That initial nose-dive most coins make int he beginning. That is what i want to avoid solely for the benefit of the supporters and HODLers.

CONs
- More risk for company as I may not earn enough through sale of tokens on exchange.
- Company will likely raise less money overall.

the only thing i can say is this: Satoshi is a billionaire and he never premined bitcoin and he never ran an ICO. what he did was that he created a useful thing and worked on it to grow it more.

That is true, but it took 5-7 years for that to happen. No business can survive that long. Bitcoin isn't a business.

[bigcash2011]

Before making the members of this forum your judge, you should have posted details about the project you intend to launch as well, i mean there can be thousands of kinds of projects for some initial funding is important for some it is not required so how can we give our opinion untill we know what kind of project you want to launch.

[Crypdon]

It depends on how you run the ICO. Some ICOs will distribute in bitcoin to bounty hunters instead of the project coin so it doesn't lose value when the advertisers dump their coins. No ICO means you have to find another way to find the revenue.

[Eddyc]

I completely agree with the parameters mentioned above, but we should to have relativity science on these issues, for example: In ICO, "Less risk to companies"? As we can be sure of this, look how much company was declared scam after an unsuccessful ICO, proving the seriousness of the crypto. So we must be neutral in our settings and analyze each project individually without comparisons.

[khendjer]

PROs
- Can raise money for the company
- Less risk for company

I'd add two more pros for the "Have ICO" in case of running it for already functional business:
- additional product advertising / marketing during the ICO;
- as follows, additional community / customers engage.

And all the cons:

CONs
- Coin will likely have less value
- Coin will likely tank as soon as listed on exchange due to investors taking profits
- HODLers will have to HODL longer to make good returns

can even become pros if to treat them as a form of motivation to do all your best to make your business #1 on the market.

[marydarli]

Adbank is proud to announce a new partnership with Verasity, a video-sharing platform enhanced with blockchain technology, with a plan to bring video ads on the blockchain. Continue

[Dondont]

I'm trying to decide whether to have an ICO or not. Here are the Pros and Cons

Have ICO:

CONs
- Coin will likely have less value
- Coin will likely tank as soon as listed on exchange due to investors taking profits
- HODLers will have to HODL longer to make good return

the value of the coin i think is not depends on how they built from. but its more than that. people looking for the best because they trust on the project. and less value also does not mean that the ICO is bad and has no potential. That is wrong.