What are your thoughts on pre-ICO lockups?

[wayne_812]

Currently Crowdholding are discussing what process they should implement in regards to pre-ICO lockups. Where do you think they should go with it?

[bundo]

I think these days it is quite a common procedure. Any ICO is just trying to look after it's altcoin to allow growth for investors. Having large Pre-ICO bonuses with a low coin market cap means that the Pre-sale investors can easily dump the coin and devalue it.

It is sometimes needed to secure future investment from ICO investors, because they know the above fact. I am sure Crowdholding or any ICO has taken the choice lightly and it is nearly impossible to balance and make everyone happy.

The way I see it is sadly if an ICO doesn't reach it's target, then it doesn't matter about the Pre-ICO, everyone loses. That's why I am more for lock ups than the gamble of not having one.

Anything can happen inside ico, success or failure is commonplace,,Some things are a problem when the SCAM when the ICO is not clear the project, the purpose of collecting funds made by developers and teams that are not clear or not plastered. This will be explained in the whitepaper.

[linkHA]

This is a common practice, and the ICO project side does not want investors to be just a speculator, only concerned about the fluctuation of short-term prices.

[jimsteel]

Think it is necessary to protect the ICO investors.

They way I see it is the Pre-ICO investors got rewarded by getting a lot more of the altcoin than ICO investors would for the same price.

[bramborakymilenec]

I think it's a little unfair on the pre-ICO investors as they were the first adopters.

I think that some sort of bonus system should be implemented, why should they have to wait? They were there first and have waited a long time...

[roganite]

Should be undertaken by all ICO's to protect the investors and the altcoin / token.

[bucksman5233]

It depends actually,
If pre sale buyers get huge discounts then it's better to lock their tokens for a while else they will dump all of their tokens on the listing day itself which causes some disturbance in the token ecosystem.
Most importantly advisors token should be locked atleast for a year.

[cryptowomba]

Personally I really like the Crowdholding project and they listen to the crowd about issues and co-create with them.

They will have thought about this process and weighed up all the pros and cons and made the decision that is the best one.

[DAVETUN]

Currently Crowdholding are discussing what process they should implement in regards to pre-ICO lockups. Where do you think they should go with it?

Pre-ico lockups is a great idea,with this you sure the dumping rate will not be instant when the market is open for the ico.the lockup can be base on percentage so that the early investors can have access to some fund if they decide to sell part of there coin

[feelideb]

Pre-Ico lock up should be burnt. There is no need for saturating the market with slush of ICO that will dilute the market cap and turn investors holding to shit! The value of existing token should take preeminence first.

[WishMeBad]

Currently Crowdholding are discussing what process they should implement in regards to pre-ICO lockups. Where do you think they should go with it?

I think is a good way to get in touch with the team developing on the project and taking care of not investing in scams as well.

[handy_hotdog]

I think generally it needs to be done to protect the altcoin / token from a dump as soon as it hits exchanges. The dump could still happen after the 3 months, but it gives the team three months to create more value.

In this case it would be bringing on more startups and creating more content / getting more users onto the platform. By the looks of Crowdholding, if you gave them 3 extra months that could be a very big difference, I just read that recently they have added two new startups and also made business connections. Give them 12 extra weeks and that could be a lot more.

[beetlejam]

It is needed to protect the altcoin.

If it gets dumped the only ones that profit are the ones who dumped it fastest and had the largest amount (which would probably be a Pre-ICO investor).

I think it is a good thing and personally I would be unhappy if an ICO didn't have it in place, because in my eyes it would mean they do not care about the coin after the ICO is completed.

[iloveturtles]

It is needed.

I looked into Crowdholding as a potential investor and there are two things stopping me from investing.

- Pre-ICO lock - Why would I invest if there are more of a gamble of people dumping what I would be purchasing? (they have completed this)

- Need more investment - I need to see that other people are adopting the idea so I am looking for them to be around 60/70% complete before I invested.

[wizzydizzycrypto]

Needs to be done.

After looking at the situation at Crowdholding, because they are going to burn a lot of their tokens after the ICO, the Pre-Sale will have a very large % of the coins in circulation.

That means if they decide to dump them, it will affect the price dramatically. I think it's a good thing that the startup is aware of the situation and they are proactively trying to solve it. I am sure a lot of ICO's wouldn't care about the investors once they have reached their targets.

Kudos to Crowdholding!

[bithuner]

A good idea.

The only issue is I am guessing they didn't announce the lock up while the pre-ICO was going on and that will have caused issues. Of course maybe they didn't feel they would have an issue raising the funds and so didn't think about it.

I feel like Crowdholding is a transparent as ICO's come, but they still leave something desired.

[georgeforeham]

It is needed to protect the altcoin from dumping and therefore the project.

It is a little rough on the Pre-ICO investors if they were not informed about the situation, but it is a common procedure in most ICO's that want to see their coin / project become successful. I would be worried if they didn't have it as it would show they are only interested in the ICO money and then do not care about the investors.

[waynechong1995]

I think that's a standard procedure to at least secure the base value of their project, coins can be created anywhere anytime any platform but the perceived value is important, without pre-ICO lockup things might go nasty when everyone dump on a single FUD, you see XUC funded without any ICO could have their funds secured for months and that's not happening for coins having 70% circulating.

[manoj6233]

a crypto index fund that will use the ICO funding to buy the underlying crypto assets. No broker fees, no exit fees, no minimum investment and full control over your assets. Full blockchain transparency.There are literally thousands of cryptocurrencies for investors to choose from. Choice paralyzes. Choice adds cost, complexity and the need for advice. CRYPTO20 eliminates this complexity for the new crypto investor.We take what works from the old-world financial system and remove what doesn't.

[batmanbabushka]

It is a good thing. I think any decent ICO should be looking out for the token and this is a common procedure to do this.

Of course it doesn't stop a dump completely, but it allows the startup more time to show how valuable the token can be. In Crowdholding's view after reading their articles 3 months lock up period after hitting exchanges isn't too crazy at all.

I have noticed that they have put startups on their platform and they are aiming for 10 by the end of January. If they get 4 (which I don't think isn't that big an ask at all) you have more than doubled the startups in the lock up period, making it a stronger platform.