bad developers have tarnished ICO!

[Pinkris128]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

They have sacrificed the reputation of the industry just for money. It really makes me mad to think that there are some people in this industry that only cares about the profit and not the improvement of the crypto industry. Developers are here to create something new, unique, and useful. Yet, most of the new ones I see are just mere copy cats of the older ones. But I still hope that we will able to find new and real projects to promote and use for the betterment of the industry.

[1715184516]

1715184516

[1715184516]

1715184516

[1715184516]

1715184516

[1715184516]

1715184516

[X-ray]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

They have sacrificed the reputation of the industry just for money. It really makes me mad to think that there are some people in this industry that only cares about the profit and not the improvement of the crypto industry. Developers are here to create something new, unique, and useful. Yet, most of the new ones I see are just mere copy cats of the older ones. But I still hope that we will able to find new and real projects to promote and use for the betterment of the industry.

That's to be expected, there's always some people that have bad intention in every field of industry and that include crypto. It's all depends on the people who hold their money at the end of the day. If you compare to IPO it's actually no different, so many fake company is making IPO and exit scam after the funding then the stock will lost its value. These kind of people are cancer of the world but what we can do is just preventing ourselves from being scammed because we can't eliminate them completely because they are simply everywhere.

[drumamat]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

Why is everyone blaming the developers?After all, many traders and participants of the bounty are to blame for the fact that the price of assets has become very low.Yes, many really only enriched themselves by doing nothing but there are those who really wanted to create something useful!

[stephanirain]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

Indeed, the developers are the key persons why the project fail. But it's not always because they do not have extensive knowledge about ERC20. Those projects are created to fail. They were developed just to raise funds and then after days of dancing in this circus, those clowns will run away with the investor's money. They really did a number in the reputation of alts and the impact of what happened last year is still fresh in this industry.

[SlimShadyMmp]

I think slow devs and lots of scammers out there have actually gone away with most peoples money so actually those things all combined makes a huge problems for investment into crypto maybe when there is some regularization and then investors might reconsider high investments

[Machine Funk]

It is really up to us and only us to blame for falling for this. If a scammer has no place to scam the scammer will starve. Don't make yourself into a victim for these people. As long as new people are clueless and greedy they will exist. If people thought harder then there will be almost no scams since noone would fall for them.

[DabsPoorVersion]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

Why is everyone blaming the developers?After all, many traders and participants of the bounty are to blame for the fact that the price of assets has become very low.Yes, many really only enriched themselves by doing nothing but there are those who really wanted to create something useful!

Because developers are supposed to run a good project, but they are the first one to take every investment of their investors. They ruined the reputation of ICO which become the reason for investors to lose their trust when investing in cryptocurrency. They just created a project for their own benefit without thinking of the possible things to happen and its effect in the crypto market.

[Xxmodded]

Bad developers have tarnished ICO, they can't trust with what have promised before their ICO launching to the public, after success their ICOs never give respond when coin listing on exchange market and get higher price after listing. But now when ICO success delay is dev ico goal to make investor frustrated with their investment and left ICO, but when listing price lower half lower than ICO price.

[skarais]

It is true that right now there are many developers who are not responsible for their projects. most silence after sales and there is no progress that is good enough. the price of tokens itself has decreased quite deep and could even fall by 90%

This is the bad side of the ICO project, developers are not always good at improving the quality of their projects so that products that have been successfully marketed in the market do not have much demand. Automatically, when the demand for a product is very low then the price tends to be cheaper. I think this is what now makes investors no longer interested in ICOs, and maybe they will prefer IEO as their new investment destination.
10% of the ICO price is a very difficult price for investors to accept, if they sell tokens + bonuses received then I don't think it will return the capital issued.

[Savemore]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

Many people nowadays are not trusting the ICOs anymore because the most of the developers have tarnished it due to theur greediness. Actually, there are now few ICOs that are good in making investments.

[Fredomago]

It is true that right now there are many developers who are not responsible for their projects. most silence after sales and there is no progress that is good enough. the price of tokens itself has decreased quite deep and could even fall by 90%

This is the bad side of the ICO project, developers are not always good at improving the quality of their projects so that products that have been successfully marketed in the market do not have much demand. Automatically, when the demand for a product is very low then the price tends to be cheaper. I think this is what now makes investors no longer interested in ICOs, and maybe they will prefer IEO as their new investment destination.
10% of the ICO price is a very difficult price for investors to accept, if they sell tokens + bonuses received then I don't think it will return the capital issued.

Even with bonuses but when the value of the token after being listed will fall up to 90% of the ICO price then there's nothing left interesting for the investors. It will only disappoint and push them away from this type of investment, developers who wanted to continue doing this business needs to step up and bring something new to the market.
Developers have a lots of work if they wanted to succeed though most of them who's showing now are after the benefits, there's still some who really concerned with the success of their product.

[ElectricMucus]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

The real problem today is the ease of creating a token. It must be said now 95% of tokens end up forgets with a volume close to $ 0.
Investors have noticed and stopped investing. Which does not benefit the serious developers and the participants of bounty

[leavolnhals]

We should also sympathize with them. all of them are just start ups and they lack a lot of experience. That is why investing in a project takes a lot of analysis and time for it.
But the current situation of ICO projects is reflecting the figures of the world. that's 90% of start ups fail and projects in the crypto market are no exception. so we should be really serious about investing.

[Sithara007]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

A part of the blame should be reserved for those who invest in these trash projects. If no one invest in these shit projects, then why should anyone try to come up with such ICOs? I was really surprised to see people willing to invest in really trash projects, with hardly any future potential. It makes me wonder about the standard of the cryptocurrency users.

The Ethereum ICO of 2015 should be taken as a benchmark case. When they went ahead with the ICO in 2015, most of the development was complete. And the ICO was priced competitively, with the hard cap set at $18 million ($0.31 per coin). Now compare this to the current bunch of ICOs, many of whom have hard cap above $100 million. And surprisingly, all they have is an idea, with the development work still in its infancy.

[HabiebRiziq]

that in the past ICO projects performed very well if they used ERC20 tokens or projects built on established platforms. because it has the potential to grow well and reduce risk when compared to creating new technology. but now on the contrary I don't see ICO functioning properly even though it's built on an existing platform like ERC20.
I will not blame the platform because the platform has been built in such a way, but I will blame the developer, Why? because most developers have misused this for crypto schemes to get rich and most project failures are based on the background of developers who do not have extensive knowledge and deliberately tarnish the ICO project's bad image.

Therefore, for now it is very difficult to find potential projects or arguably good projects to invest in or participate in because some developers only want personal benefits, when they have benefited they will just leave it. So many of us feel that what we are doing is futile and unlike a few years ago when ICO was still a very good place to make a profit.