Is it possible to create a "successful" ICO?

[OBAViJEST]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

[1714854650]

1714854650

[1714854650]

1714854650

[1714854650]

1714854650

[1714854650]

1714854650

[1714854650]

1714854650

[schnötzel]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

99% - no, not that much
" only a few coins tend to live long enough"  most of them are still in alpha ( btw. crypto itself is still in alpha). 99,99% without usecase.
Come back in 2-3 years

[robelneo]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

Majority of them are shitcoins and scam coins but there's always an exception,pesobit are good example,victoriouscoin which offer products and services although price is not good,it's still a good option to buy when it is already on exchange,so we can see how strong the coins and how attractive it is in the eyes of the investors.

[iamnotback]

how attractive it is in the eyes of the investors.

Is "mining the speculators" our metric for success?

What about 100 million users adoption? Not relevant?

[judeafante]

They should offer something that is not been offered before,and the marketing should be strong and the devs team can update and upgrade the coin features,90% of them are scam I encounter one guy selling air to the gullible I'm glad the dev of that coin is not posting anymore..

[error08]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

99% - no, not that much
" only a few coins tend to live long enough"  most of them are still in alpha ( btw. crypto itself is still in alpha). 99,99% without usecase.
Come back in 2-3 years

Indeed, some coins still survive and stand still even though it takes years to come back just like Dash coin did.
There are plenty of coins that qualifies going through a long way and worth as well.
What will keep those coins alive? I think there are some criteria such as the idea of the coin and developers team behind it. Moreover, people could vote and choose which one as the best coin to invest on, check my signature to vote.

[cengsuwuei]

majority new altcoin, if good dev team, and ico selling is succes, coin can get long live and good price
you can see in iconomi progres coin is very good, price in dollar value very good too

[bathrobehero]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

What do you consider successful?

Making money out of scamming people? Probably.
Having a real shot at being a stable long term currency? No, the initial distribution of ICOs are terrible.
Targeting the widest userbase to eventually use/invest into the coin? Unlikely, ICO smell hardly washes off.

So basically, ICOs are starting with well deserved handicap, problem is not that many people see it that way.

And ICOs always tend to fall into two categories; boring coin that does nothing new (which shouldn't need funding) and way overambitious, changing the world type nonsense. Granted, I don't follow all ICOs, but I've yet to see an one which made me think, yeah that's a good idea and it might actually work and be something new and useful.

As were the case a couple of years ago when people slowly learned to avoid premined coins, premine 2.0 (e.g. ICO) is slowly starting to finally have the same fate.

[Coin_trader]

even those successful ICOs are considered scam as the time goes, people quickly say that it is an unsucessful if the price dived below the ICO price, cryptos are volatile and there is always a risk.

[hasiramasenju]

till now i had see successful ICO only when they distribute the coin to the investors and there was no attempt to keep those coin staying alive and eventually most of those coin would not last long and became dust coin however it is possible to do so but would be very hard and the chance is too small

[hyudien]

I see if dev distribution their ICO before platforms or any application not completed or fix. So I think this is one way to make them(investors and bounty hunter) dump their own coin. And this is one of many reason to made ICO failed after distribution.

[Diced90]

The problem is some devs have scammed investors too many times that's why ICOs with high budget targets fail to fund raise the required funds leading to being totally unsuccessful unless the sponsor the project by other means.

[rafajunior99]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

What do you consider successful?

Making money out of scamming people? Probably.
Having a real shot at being a stable long term currency? No, the initial distribution of ICOs are terrible.
Targeting the widest userbase to eventually use/invest into the coin? Unlikely, ICO smell hardly washes off.

So basically, ICOs are starting with well deserved handicap, problem is not that many people see it that way.

And ICOs always tend to fall into two categories; boring coin that does nothing new (which shouldn't need funding) and way overambitious, changing the world type nonsense. Granted, I don't follow all ICOs, but I've yet to see an one which made me think, yeah that's a good idea and it might actually work and be something new and useful.

As were the case a couple of years ago when people slowly learned to avoid premined coins, premine 2.0 (e.g. ICO) is slowly starting to finally have the same fate.

seems not only that, they need to know most of them get a gift from ICO just throw not altruistic. and I think it should keep the price so that the coin will remain alive and intact, but the reality is different than expected for the coin will remain alive seemed like they threw coins to go after getting a gift from the ICO, while the coin will slowly die forever.

[Febo]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

I am not sure if you just woke up after 2 years of sleeping but here on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_funded_crowdfunding_projects  where you have biggest ICOs in human history. and quite many happened on this forum. As it looks soon that TOP ICO list will be made from only projects from this forum, since blockchain is best medium to make ICOs.

[andron8383]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

Many people have threaten ICOs like fast 2x payout 3x payout roulette game while ICO projects are work in progress in development state are bad product hard to marketing and so on. In crypto people want performance at ONCE in no time. In month in week but real work doesn't looks like that.
Even ICOs that delivers what have promised mean time will have dumps price will flow below ICO because development take time.
Then after development you need time to make ICO project keep rolling.
if you have invested into project that had succes like ETH you are on + if you found people who runned away and scammed you had bad luck or missed some scam indicators.

(maintaining or rising above the ICO price) - falling below ICO is normal because you sell just "promise of delivering" longer it takes the fewer people believes and stays with projects.
Staying above ICO now is hard because people see BTC price massively up nd they cash out to fiat or other working alts to get money from new money moved into crypto.
While ICOs are unfinished unproven projects yet. (yes yet because once they delivers some stuff will change ) people will see progress and some evolution.
Maybe not in this BTC pump cycle those will be pumped but with next after delivering it will be.

Summary: ICOs are unfinished products vision of something - development takes long time so till projects will be finished ICOs will land below ICO price.
To be up in price ICO needs be development in speed of light (but in real life such thing doesn't exist)

[Skarner21]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

Development and how they are making profit or benefits if the ICO they are targeting. .if there is no development and no site are actually accepting that ICO it will be the same as other ICO launch dump few days..
If you are planning to start an ICO and release it better to make first a website where we can use your altcoin and increase those website after launch so that you can push other people to use they are altcoin in your site where we can use ICO.
Gambling are most of their needs .. shopping online.. vcc this is what people needs right now..

[wilson_bitbybit]

Although most icos fail, usually there is a greater chance for early adopters to succeed in the launch. However, in the long run, almost all the icos I've seen so far are a big disappointment.

[Spoetnik]

Nope.

Ethereum is the most successful and it's been a train wreck of failure.
It's a sad little joke it's considered the no. 2 coin in crypto.
It like any other ICO coin that is simply traded for profits.. not actually used.

I asked here with a new topic how the fuel tokens were used as intended and i got 0 replies.
Apparently no one knows  

Further more the percentage of comments posted here about the ACTUAL smart contracts (the point of the coin in the first place)
Have been about 0.000001%

If people cared about them they would be talking about them and the huge list of super duper awesome "DAPPS" non stop every second topic here.. but nope we see NONE !
When i say this on very rare occasions some douche will post a list of bullshit crAPP's but if i didn't bring it up it wouldn't have even been posted.

You see Butters here running his fucking mouth talking up his "Smart contracts" ?
He has plenty to say and plenty of time to kick back and enjoy the MILLIONS of dollars he got from ETH YOU ALL GAVE HIM !
You think butters gives a fucking shit if you all *USE* his ICO shit coin ?
Nope.. he's been paid (he admitted it)

3 god damn fucking years later and it's done NOTHING and has no adoption and is traded for ROI's
And that is it !

It sickens me to fuck & back that you douche bags consider that shitty ass failed ICO coin to be #2 in all of crypto behind Bitcoin itself.
What a fucking pathetic sad joke  

[Pursuer]

the question is why would you even want to create an ICO?
why should you offer some coins and why should you be paid for it?

this always baffles me when people say the developers should be paid!
they are not making us an application, they are in fact making a "currency aka altcoin" and if these developers think they are really doing a good job then they can invest in their own project by mining it from day 1 (not premine but mining like everyone else) and even buy it then sell it when their "awesome" project went to the moon.

and when you found a project developer who was willing to invest in his own coin then be sure that thing is good. but none of them do it because they know better than you and me what kind of crap they are producing

[CraigWrightBTC]

I think yes, ICO can be successful although it still depend on the developers, innovations, and investors
also create ICO needs long time and much capital.
It must be serious building projects on ICO and the ICO must there are beneficial than other altcoins,
I am sure it is not be easy projects be builded.

[densuj]

We all know 99% of ICOs end up to be garbage - only a few coins tend to live long enough to be considered 'worthwhile' (maintaining or rising above the ICO price).

What does the community think keeps these coins alive, instead of the usual result of those buying into the ICO dumping upon launch?

I think not, ICO are like new way to scam the people and there are not the rules manage about the ICO, should there are something escrow between the investors and the developers of coins, the escrow must control amount of ICO, investors who make investments on ICO and the escrow must control about the progress the projects, it will protect the investors from scamers of ICO.

[Spoetnik]

I think yeah.. because.

(Secretly i need to make money off them)

I say yeah because they are crooked but won't admit it nor will i admit every one of them is a failure.

ROI'z !!!111ONE

[The Sceptical Chymist]

More like 99.99% BEGIN as garbage and are swept away in the torrent of diarrhea from the moment of conception.  If you can find a way to market a coin to the mass sucker pool, then you'll have a hit.  Like this new one, Pepecash or whateverthefuck it's called.  Or something like dogecoin. 

Every single one of these pieces of shit tries to have a gimmick, and it's all blatantly obvious.  None of these coins has a reason to exist.  They are looking to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist--but idiots buy them up anyway.  It's all madness, I tell you.

[clickerz]

We have different opinion here but I think yes, it is possible to have a successful ICO. Like ICONOMI they are successful and possibly other coins. Just see to it that the coins has a demand or purpose where people are buying it because it is needed or they can benefited from it. All investors only wants their ROI, most are businessmen.