[2018-05-15] ICO is still booming: what we need to understand

[S3cco]

Bitcoin Garden: ICO is still booming: what we need to understand in order not to make mistakes when investing
https://bitcoingarden.org/ico-is-still-booming-what-we-need-to-understand-in-order-not-to-make-mistakes-when-investing/

In 2018 the ICO market does not show signs of slowing down. This year more than 1000 ICOs have already been successfully completed with estimated $1.5 billion raised. And this is not counting the sale of Telegram project tokens – it is expected that the ICO messenger and the blockchain platform of Pavel Durov will set a new record for fund-raising. We already know about two rounds of investments, during which about 1.7 billion dollars were raised.

At the moment, the market entered the phase when the number of projects offering to buy their tokens during Initial Coin Offering events no longer allows investors to rely solely on their own analysis. Of course it is still necessary to consider the following factors that are extremely important when choosing an ICO to invest:

1. The project itself must resolve the actual problem faced by millions of customers, for example, a convenient crypto wallet, file storage rather than using a contrived binding to the blockchain to use the wave of interest in the new technology.
2. The project must have a well-written whitepaper, which lists all the basic information about the project: its idea, ways of technical implementation, significance for the market and competitive advantages.
3. The working prototype should be at least in the alpha version, published on Github and subjected to critical analysis by the crypto community and its leaders in other authoritative sources.
4. The released token must have a distinct economics of use. If it is a token for internal use (utility token), then we have to look at exactly what it can be spent on inside the ecosystem and how valuable it is. If the token is used as a security, then it is important to understand how the income is going to be paid to its holders.
5. It is extremely important to correctly assess the team behind the project. Founders must have a proven track record of creating and managing companies in the same field, or they must be significant names in the industry. The same applies to advisors, since they often have unique expertise or knowledge relevant to the scope of the project.

In order to make sure that the ICO meets at least these minimum requirements, there appeared many agencies and individual analysts who collect all of the above information, forming the grades of Initial Coin Offerings on its basis....

[senin]

I agree that ICO continues to grow well this year. This activity as a whole is very necessary for the development of the crypto currency, despite the fact that many of them are deservedly criticized. Tokens produced as a result of ICO are very useful and provide real convenience for people. However, it is very necessary that this activity be regulated by state bodies or public organizations in order to make it more transparent and in order to protect the rights of investors. I hope that this year we will see such regulation.

[sandor111]

There is this bad stigma attached to ICOs because of many scam or low quality unrealistic ICOs. But if investors check those factors mentioned in this article, then there is nothing to be afraid of. Just look how many tokens from ICOs are there in the top 100 list on coinmarketcap - approximately half of them are tokens from ICOs, which means there are a lot of legit projects.

[stomachgrowls]

I agree that ICO continues to grow well this year. This activity as a whole is very necessary for the development of the crypto currency, despite the fact that many of them are deservedly criticized. Tokens produced as a result of ICO are very useful and provide real convenience for people. However, it is very necessary that this activity be regulated by state bodies or public organizations in order to make it more transparent and in order to protect the rights of investors. I hope that this year we will see such regulation.

I do really hate regulation into things I do like specially on crypto matters but now ive been already preferring it to be implemented or applied into ICO which it will really give security and transparency into its investors if ICO turns out to be regulated or do comply governments laws.It might really get the true essense of crypto but much better compared on losing out money into the hands of those criminal minds. ICOs on last year is different into this present ones but yet we are still seeing some kicking or scenario that it isn't over yet.

[Dean Collins]

I also agree that this year the ICO continues to grow. In my opinion, you forgot about the detailed description of the encryption methods used.

[bitbull101]

4. The released token must have a distinct economics of use. If it is a token for internal use (utility token), then we have to look at exactly what it can be spent on inside the ecosystem and how valuable it is. If the token is used as a security, then it is important to understand how the income is going to be paid to its holders.
5. It is extremely important to correctly assess the team behind the project. Founders must have a proven track record of creating and managing companies in the same field, or they must be significant names in the industry. The same applies to advisors, since they often have unique expertise or knowledge relevant to the scope of the project.

In order to make sure that the ICO meets at least these minimum requirements, there appeared many agencies and individual analysts who collect all of the above information, forming the grades of Initial Coin Offerings on its basis....[/i]

Which of those two do you think is more important?

[mazdafunsun]

There is this bad stigma attached to ICOs because of many scam or low quality unrealistic ICOs. But if investors check those factors mentioned in this article, then there is nothing to be afraid of. Just look how many tokens from ICOs are there in the top 100 list on coinmarketcap - approximately half of them are tokens from ICOs, which means there are a lot of legit projects.

It seems that bad stigma has not stopped investors of investing and as the artcile states , huge amount has raised despite scams.

Top100 is mainly made from ICOs, it only logical but over what time period and how many ICOs where launched, how many raised the hardcap, and how many failed because of being scam or just did not make it. I dont think that " a lot of legit projects" is a fair statement.

[1BTC EQUALS 1CAR]

Yes, new projects are still coming. But I know that their numbers decreased compared than last year where every ICO that is hyped just goes crazy in terms of investments. Some top pick ICOs by many critics only managed to reach just half of their hardcap.

[Samarkand]

...Tokens produced as a result of ICO are very useful and provide real convenience for people. ...

Please tell me a single example of a token that is "very useful" and provides anything
of value to its users. I concede that there are some nice ideas (e.g. prediction markets
like Gnosis), but even these projects haven´t gained any meaningful traction.

ICOs are exclusively interesting at the moment for the founders, who intend to enrich themselves
and for speculators, who buy into the ICOs in order to flip the tokens for a quick profit after
they start trading on the exchanges. However, in terms of actual usage of these products I
have yet to see a single implementation of an ICO that has a working product and an actual
user base.

More and more people think that Bitcoin may be the only viable blockchain application after all
and everything else is just an outright scam or at least a shady money grab.

[bob_rushford]

Take a look at crypto evolution :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac1P3GXkFxc

[jmesfisher]

At the moment, the most respected rating agencies with the most extensive databases are ICOrating and ICObench. They have been on the market for quite a long time and their ratings have proved to be fairly objective and therefore worthy of attention.

sorry but... after that I can't take seriously that article... ICObench is bad and "corrupted" and ICOrating gives good rating if you pay them... it's like a website without bad ratings.

[prehisto]

At the moment, the most respected rating agencies with the most extensive databases are ICOrating and ICObench. They have been on the market for quite a long time and their ratings have proved to be fairly objective and therefore worthy of attention.

sorry but... after that I can't take seriously that article... ICObench is bad and "corrupted" and ICOrating gives good rating if you pay them... it's like a website without bad ratings.

agreed, the ratings are good for nothing. These websites make money from paying ICO's for their ratings, they are a ton of good examples why not to trust them.
For example project " Titanium" had good ratings everywhere, they where  scam in the end.

[jmesfisher]

At the moment, the most respected rating agencies with the most extensive databases are ICOrating and ICObench. They have been on the market for quite a long time and their ratings have proved to be fairly objective and therefore worthy of attention.

sorry but... after that I can't take seriously that article... ICObench is bad and "corrupted" and ICOrating gives good rating if you pay them... it's like a website without bad ratings.

agreed, the ratings are good for nothing. These websites make money from paying ICO's for their ratings, they are a ton of good examples why not to trust them.
For example project " Titanium" had good ratings everywhere, they where  scam in the end.

there are a lot of projects like Titanium.... I remember for example HashCard they had very good rating and scammed investors (BTW, not sure about that but I think they had confirmed listing on Bancor))))

[Ridwan Fauzi]

I been thinking, and even became a contradiction that I always impression.

I dont think that " a lot of legit projects" is a fair statement.

Let's says an ICO has finished and has listed on market. But in fact, the token is not as soft as the ICO took place or it can be said ICO developers cannot make the price increase or they give up for many reasons. Who I know, there are many tokens that have died in the market because they were left by their investors. I guess this can be said to be a failed ICO or an ICO scam far from the term of legit.