From what countries ICOs are perceived as reliable? Is there a rule for that?

I've noticed that announcements of projects from some countries are perceived as better or worse in the community (i.e. more often perceived as scam or perceived as more professional etc., but maybe I'm wrong):

Example countries:

1. China (i.e. dgx.io)

2. Russia (i.e. ZrCoin)

3. Estonia (i.e. Wings)

4. Switzerland

5. USA

6. Poland (i.e. Golem)

7. India

8. Singapore

9. Israel

etc..

Which are more reliable? Or maybe it is just a matter of communication or translation?

Quote from: gregory51gosh on June 02, 2017, 01:27:31 PM

It's too hard to know what is or isn't a scam. In the ICO world, I think it's safe to have a mindset where everything is a scam by default.

China has tons of people so statistically tons of scams are going to come from China. They say the chinese love money above everything else because coming from communism they now want to get their hands of all money. I don't believe in racial generalizations tho.

Just go project by project and evaluate.

Ok, thank you for the answer.

I was wondered because - for example - Golem - is a typical polish project. Poland is no well known in investments. But when golem established in Switzerland, many said 'oh, great project from Switzerland'.

That is why I am wondering if it important for people to heave establishment and hide the origins or to show patriotic origins.

I've seen a lot of people attacking Russian projects on the forums in the ANN, but some of them are very good prepared like ZrCoin..

I just got my mind confused.

The way I see it is that anyone who judge an ICO/Project from the country of the staff is stupid. You should first read the whitepaper, the team behind the project and their background without giving a damn about the country, how much money they did put on the marketing is also important because scammers are never willing to put money but take it.

When it's from russia, it's most of the time a scam. Russian hackers always creates so much creative ways to scam which includes creating ICOs. It really destroys the image of russians.

So mainly I should focus how much money was put into the project? And other assets? Like in zr coin there was an office, showing a fab. Something like a proof of concept?

Quote from: gregory51gosh on June 02, 2017, 02:20:45 PM

So mainly I should focus how much money was put into the project? And other assets? Like in zr coin there was an office, showing a fab. Something like a proof of concept?

Doesn't really matter where the ICO or project came from, what matters is the project itself and how much efforts the developers are doing for it. You should assess it based on your own criteria whether a project is legit or not. There is really no single rule to judge whether a project is a scam or not, but you can be safe if you do your due diligence.

I think you forget korea, They are launching BOScoin. But in terms of reliability, I don't only check the country but the Whitepaper itself and the credibility of devs. But most of successful coin came from Russia. China ICO is suck and full of promises.

Quote from: gregory51gosh on June 02, 2017, 01:27:31 PM

It all comes down to merit and the reputation of the team in my opinion. If they have some people that have contributed to the community and they actually know what they're doing, along with having a fair amount of information about themselves, I'll treat it as less of a worry than something with a bunch of no-names that are trying to do something massive.

I have no idea if there are any "good" countries that put out ICOs and if there are any "bad" ones.

Thank you for all advises.

Is it good if there are advisors from the cryptoworld or by advisors you mean professionals? In some projects for example are scientists.

Is it better if the team is decentralized in several countries or in one place?

Quote from: gregory51gosh on June 02, 2017, 02:48:08 PM

S
Decentralized in several countries is much better rather than in one country.

I'm afraid that when it is decentralized there may be lack of tools of cooperations, etc. mostly it is based on good CV. There is difference when something is made on github and for physical projects I think..

The only rule you should keep in mind is that putting money into an ICO is risky. In the business world you need to assess your risk reward ratio.

Say for example 90% of all ICOs fail or go nowhere really. You need to price that in. The other 10% of ICOs that dont fail, what is their rate of return?

So you take 100 dollar invesment into them lets say. You have a 90 percent chance of nothing happening and losing it all as an example. You are better off gambling that 100 dollars in reality.

The issue of ICO investments have nothing to do with countries but with the concept behind the coin, people only buy into the idea if they are convinced that it could make some profits for them.

I repeat CONCEPTS and not COUNTRIES influences the success of ico.

Are you serious? Really countries matter? I don't agree a bit.
Are we living in back 15-16th century when countries and tribes were determinant of trust, say, Garoghlanian.
It is 21st tech century where ideas and innovation counts. All you need to consider is whether company taking all legit steps to raise funds. If one finds any deficiency, we can tag it as suspicious scam!

The country where the ICO comes from is the least of your concern if you're going to determine if it is a scam or not because look, If a project from whatever country succeeded it doesn't mean that the next one whoose also from that country will also succeed . If you're talking about if the next project will inherit some reputation, maybe yes but its not that noticeable I think? cause I believe the community judges a certain project based on its concept, devs, connection, upcoming projs etc. . It doesn't really matter which country/race it comes from .

Quote from: gregory51gosh on June 02, 2017, 02:05:52 PM

yeah russia is not seen well many times, but i think people will invest more if they see that the coin is coming from their country, this is a fact, but there is no rule anout ico being bad or not, it's not depend on the country, because if the dev is good and can deliver a good roadmap the ico will be good too, look at the roadmap it's one of the most important thing for a coin

I do not think the reliable factor depends upon the country of origin but the experience and transparency of the developers and how good their project and proposal are and advertisement is a major factor in everything ,he more the advertisement the more the reach you will get for your project.

Can not judge from which country ICO comes from, because everything is of value from the whole, judgments can be seen from the owner of the ICO project it self, he meant it or not. This can be seen from the way the ICO project owner promotes his project or anything else Cool

Cryptos most of the times don't have a "country" because the development team is from various countries or because they are anonymous. But I don't think it matters, one way or another