Why do most people invest in wrong ICOs to lose money ?

[Descentralized_DaN]

ICO's need to start asking for the real value they need, projects asking for 40M when they only needed 1M at most is the biggest problem, if they deliver the token value will fly so the tokens they still own will too, that way the risk/reward is better divided between investors and ICO makers.
In case they raise 40M even if the token goes to 0 its a big win.
We need more honest ICO like confido.

[BitcoinHodler]

because it is easy for you to say they are "wrong" ICOs now that they are over and their fate is clear to everyone. but by the time they are hyping things up, every one of them are super active and show themselves as the best and most active team in the whole world.

besides investing in ICOs are all the same, and it is like gambling. none of them really do anything. the criteria you mentioned are pointless too. none of those ICOs do anything either, they are just more profitable because the bets people made were more lucky, nothing more.

[KingScorpio]

This board amazes me sometimes.

All the hyped ICOs are killing people - Bancor, Monaco etc and there is no self reflection.

People need to change the way they participate in projects.

All the rubbish needs to be shunned.

Sectors need to be chosen carefully, and projects thereafter.

REAL energy projects (i.e. NOT asset managers such as wepower, and NOT the pure solar/other renewable energy investment rubbish where crypto is just "added" to the process as a marketing tool) should be favoured, such as Grid+ and Prosume Energy.

Stop following people who have proven themselves useless.

i tell you why,

you actually dont lose money you lose capital, money these days means a lot.

because the investors have increasingly no choice, they will lose much more if they dont invest.

nation state bankers have to constantly invest and give money or economic structure will collapse and destroy because people that have trusted the economic system made an apperenticeship demand regular contracts.

people that left nation state economics and engage in cryptoeconomics have to speculate to get economic gains, since they have no idea how to build and run a company, because they have no idea about legal framworks and technical know how.

so they are then tapped int he principal agent dilema,

you dont have to start a principal agent science profession now, you can simply use the old existing one.

or you look for a professional investment company, that does the professional thinking for you.

but that costs.

regards

[eternalgloom]

Participate in ICO is risky. many projects are closed. By experience the best time to participate in the summer ICO. It is also better to use insider information

There is no right or wrong time to invest in an ICO, you just have to pick the right project regardless of when you choose to invest.
Most people don't really have insider information, so it's silly to give that as advice.

Instead people should focus on doing research about the team, technical aspects of the ICO and what kind of work has already gone into the project.

[trk]

high risk high gain?
the problem is they are giving it their money (to them this means investment) while having no experience or atleast time to re-study the whitepaper, prospect, etc
At the end of the day they end up losing money

[Hughcrypto]

This board amazes me sometimes.

All the hyped ICOs are killing people - Bancor, Monaco etc and there is no self reflection.

People need to change the way they participate in projects.

All the rubbish needs to be shunned.

Sectors need to be chosen carefully, and projects thereafter.

REAL energy projects (i.e. NOT asset managers such as wepower, and NOT the pure solar/other renewable energy investment rubbish where crypto is just "added" to the process as a marketing tool) should be favoured, such as Grid+ and Prosume Energy.

Stop following people who have proven themselves useless.

You put it in the name of the thread as if people actually invested to lose money. This is surely wrong. It is just rather hard to define what is going to be a good investment. I bought blackmoon for about 70 cents and now it's under 50. The project was interesting, team is legit and marketing was amazing. What has gone wrong? No idea. Electroneum also has a team full of enthusiasts and the idea of their project is truly innovative and attractive. Yet from the time coin was released the price has only been going down. Why is this happening? Hard to say. It's not as easy as you put it anyway.

Please do not misunderstand me - absolutely it is not easy at all, but when I see what kind of projects are achieving some kind of manufactured hype and then loads of investors it is rather sad.

That people do not gravitate towards quality instead of hype is a deciding phenomena.

[Hughcrypto]

Define wrong ICOs? this actually leads to a good and most appropriate investment. But there will always back to investor, we cannot judge wrong when others maybe say true. And like kryptqnick say people invest is not for losing money. So they must be do their own research before investing.

Defingin a "wrong" ICO is of course impossible, I did not mean it so bluntly.

It is the way so many people talk about whatever has managed to spend money on creating a fake hype - and that is then followed by disappointment down the line.

In my eyes the market has changed - before a large chunk of ICOs were short term positive because everything was hyped.

Now, the research has to go beyond the immediate ICO listing "pop" - the easy money is gone.

But I truly believe among all the rubbish there are real projects such as Prosume Energy and Grid+.

[okissabam]

All I could sayis to each his own, maybe people invest in the wrong ICO and eventually lose their money probably because they all think they could earn from or profit from it. I would think the same thing if I were them.

[Hughcrypto]

REAL energy projects (i.e. NOT asset managers such as wepower, and NOT the pure solar/other renewable energy investment rubbish where crypto is just "added" to the process as a marketing tool) should be favoured, such as Grid+ and Prosume Energy.

What in your opinion is the difference between Grid+ and SunContract, for instance? Aren't both promoting exchange of surplus energy through crypto assets?

Well first of all a project needs to go beyond the pure exchange of "surplus" - it has to be part of a decentralisation as well as deregulationary "revolution" if you will.

SunContract does not have anything close to the professionalism or contacts or regional spread as a professional project such as Prosume Energy - of course the underlying idea is ok.

But in order for there to be amazing upside potential the team has to be top notch (Prosume has amazing blockchain and energy experts and advisors from Ernst and Young as well as sovereign wealth funds !) and is based Europe wide for a global eventual roll out.

Not comparable. Being in the right sector and even having the right idea is not enough ingredients for success.

[leea-1334]

Thank you to OP for your message. I apologise I cannot reply directly since I get several PMs. But you are right of course, people have sorely underestimated what it takes to make a crypto successful. See Bitcoin core they have so many geniuses at work and they still have problems. See their upgrades and pull comments. No alt or ICO has even 0.01% of development that Bitcoin has. And if they do, it is not as transparent.

The hard truth is almost all ICOs have absolutely no clue about how to create the solutions they are promoting. They just hope to find the right dev, copy code from existing blockchains and hire outsourced coders to patch things together.

[Hughcrypto]

ICO's need to start asking for the real value they need, projects asking for 40M when they only needed 1M at most is the biggest problem, if they deliver the token value will fly so the tokens they still own will too, that way the risk/reward is better divided between investors and ICO makers.
In case they raise 40M even if the token goes to 0 its a big win.
We need more honest ICO like confido.

I do not disagree - a large size does not have to be detrimental if the business plan backs it - decentralised energy and associated projects globally could easily swallow 2bn USD.

However, most could survive on much much smaller which then kills the holders.

What is even worse in my eyes though are the ICOs that issue tokens to themselves IRRESPECTIVE of size raised. That is a clear scam. To make clear what I mean - 1m tokens raised - 100m tokens to the team, or 100m tokens raised - 100m tokens to the team.

[Hughcrypto]

because it is easy for you to say they are "wrong" ICOs now that they are over and their fate is clear to everyone. but by the time they are hyping things up, every one of them are super active and show themselves as the best and most active team in the whole world.

besides investing in ICOs are all the same, and it is like gambling. none of them really do anything. the criteria you mentioned are pointless too. none of those ICOs do anything either, they are just more profitable because the bets people made were more lucky, nothing more.

My point is that people need to change the way they view "hype" - because I believe it is the opposite of good.

A real project does not hype itself like a cheap streetworker.

[Hughcrypto]

This board amazes me sometimes.

All the hyped ICOs are killing people - Bancor, Monaco etc and there is no self reflection.

People need to change the way they participate in projects.

All the rubbish needs to be shunned.

Sectors need to be chosen carefully, and projects thereafter.

REAL energy projects (i.e. NOT asset managers such as wepower, and NOT the pure solar/other renewable energy investment rubbish where crypto is just "added" to the process as a marketing tool) should be favoured, such as Grid+ and Prosume Energy.

Stop following people who have proven themselves useless.

i tell you why,

you actually dont lose money you lose capital, money these days means a lot.

because the investors have increasingly no choice, they will lose much more if they dont invest.

nation state bankers have to constantly invest and give money or economic structure will collapse and destroy because people that have trusted the economic system made an apperenticeship demand regular contracts.

people that left nation state economics and engage in cryptoeconomics have to speculate to get economic gains, since they have no idea how to build and run a company, because they have no idea about legal framworks and technical know how.

so they are then tapped int he principal agent dilema,

you dont have to start a principal agent science profession now, you can simply use the old existing one.

or you look for a professional investment company, that does the professional thinking for you.

but that costs.

regards

Even f that were the case - there should still be the incentive to look beyond hype that has proven to be negative in the longer run, and focus on the few real projects such as Prosume.

I just do not like seeing people being ripped off all the time.

[Hughcrypto]

Participate in ICO is risky. many projects are closed. By experience the best time to participate in the summer ICO. It is also better to use insider information

There is no right or wrong time to invest in an ICO, you just have to pick the right project regardless of when you choose to invest.
Most people don't really have insider information, so it's silly to give that as advice.

Instead people should focus on doing research about the team, technical aspects of the ICO and what kind of work has already gone into the project.

You are absolutely right.

Sadly, that is not what is being done.

[Badhuamin]

maybe the person is not careful in choosing to invest in ico that he chose not see in detail about ico vision and mission that he followed.

[sabujo]

REAL energy projects (i.e. NOT asset managers such as wepower, and NOT the pure solar/other renewable energy investment rubbish where crypto is just "added" to the process as a marketing tool) should be favoured, such as Grid+ and Prosume Energy.

What in your opinion is the difference between Grid+ and SunContract, for instance? Aren't both promoting exchange of surplus energy through crypto assets?

Well first of all a project needs to go beyond the pure exchange of "surplus" - it has to be part of a decentralisation as well as deregulationary "revolution" if you will.

SunContract does not have anything close to the professionalism or contacts or regional spread as a professional project such as Prosume Energy - of course the underlying idea is ok.

But in order for there to be amazing upside potential the team has to be top notch (Prosume has amazing blockchain and energy experts and advisors from Ernst and Young as well as sovereign wealth funds !) and is based Europe wide for a global eventual roll out.

Not comparable. Being in the right sector and even having the right idea is not enough ingredients for success.

Thank you for your input. I actually invested in SNC in the beginning but I've been wondering what kind of future I do expect of them because I don't see revolutionary fundamentals there. The idea seems good but in theory anyone can do what they want to do.

[jatin729]

Yeah i totally agree with your question that most of people are investing their money wrong ico, because they are not researched about them.
 here is one way to identify legit ico if particular ico has forum on bitcointalk.org and it has started campaign than it would be consider as legit ico. People can invest in it.

[Poink]

This board amazes me sometimes.

All the hyped ICOs are killing people - Bancor, Monaco etc and there is no self reflection.

People need to change the way they participate in projects.

All the rubbish needs to be shunned.

Sectors need to be chosen carefully, and projects thereafter.

REAL energy projects (i.e. NOT asset managers such as wepower, and NOT the pure solar/other renewable energy investment rubbish where crypto is just "added" to the process as a marketing tool) should be favoured, such as Grid+ and Prosume Energy.

Stop following people who have proven themselves useless.

You sound like all knowing.  CRYPTO in general is all speculation (yes even BTC).  It is a form of a gamble and very unpredictable.  In everything, there are winners and losers.  Not everyone can be winners...sorry but that is real life.

You claim Bancor and Monaco are bad coins...while I don't own both, I disagree with you.  You might end up eating your words a few months from now based on these two alone.

Good projects sometimes tank, bad projects sometimes become hits...it is what it is and if it is easy to predict, everyone will make the right call and NO ONE will make money as they do in crypto world.  It is a double edged sword...cuts both way.  You need losers to win.

[Hughcrypto]

This board amazes me sometimes.

All the hyped ICOs are killing people - Bancor, Monaco etc and there is no self reflection.

People need to change the way they participate in projects.

All the rubbish needs to be shunned.

Sectors need to be chosen carefully, and projects thereafter.

REAL energy projects (i.e. NOT asset managers such as wepower, and NOT the pure solar/other renewable energy investment rubbish where crypto is just "added" to the process as a marketing tool) should be favoured, such as Grid+ and Prosume Energy.

Stop following people who have proven themselves useless.

You sound like all knowing.  CRYPTO in general is all speculation (yes even BTC).  It is a form of a gamble and very unpredictable.  In everything, there are winners and losers.  Not everyone can be winners...sorry but that is real life.

You claim Bancor and Monaco are bad coins...while I don't own both, I disagree with you.  You might end up eating your words a few months from now based on these two alone.

Good projects sometimes tank, bad projects sometimes become hits...it is what it is and if it is easy to predict, everyone will make the right call and NO ONE will make money as they do in crypto world.  It is a double edged sword...cuts both way.  You need losers to win.

I am not at all all knowing. Far from it.

However, as any investment form matures it moves from gambling to seriousness (or dies).

Clearly, most of the hyped ICOs do not have even a chance of making it since they have teams and set ups that are far from good.

Since there is maturation process going on, I want people to be aware of the change in the ICO landscape - and be aware of oversupplied tokens etc.

There are very few real projects out there, and yes they may fail as well, but considering the losses since the altcoin high a while back, people need to adapt.

That is my point.

[blueteam09]

Not all ico will disappoint investors ico what risk it if you get money after investing in ico that is luck but when you lose money you say to all ico is a fraud, but there are many successful and bad ico is also partly due to you when you invest and any ico you should know about it but you should not follow the group on the telegram or facebook and then use your money wisely do not blindly believe in other people