buwaytress
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2926
Merit: 3603
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
January 14, 2018, 03:26:37 PM |
|
All good steps, all good advice, but the reality is that, the majority of ICOs have only been around for about a year or so. What does this mean? It means we only have a very limited period of historical data to determine if they were successful or not. And then, what are your definitions of "good" crypto ICOs?
Obviously, people jump to price as a first indicator. But as above, how can you determine "good" from a price performance of a year, perhaps two at best? Perhaps people look at high profile ICOs that raised millions, and whose tokens now trade below ICO cost - does that mean it was a bad ICO? Perhaps its price potential has yet to come. If we take tokens that are flying high now, who's to say they won't drop next year? Is short term perspective necessary to qualify as "good"?
I see less correlation of "good ICOs" in terms of price, with quality/tech/roadmap/dev team at the moment, and more with marketing.
|