Never invest no product ICOs

[desi92]

I was wondering, why a lot of projects don't have such an important thing for a successful ICO as a product.

When a company has a product it means they have it to develop. In such case, a company shows why they need ICO and how the company will be growing. What is more, there is more trust because a company has experience in a field they are working.

For example, KickCity company that exists two years. KickCity an event platform that generates revenue and has a Helsinki government grant. KickCity needs ICO to make business bigger and to become a decentralized platform where every user is rewarded for ticket promotion.

On the other hand, no product ICOs can prove their success just in theory. There is no proof base that product will be developed and will be working right.

In such unstable industry as ICO everything has to be under control. The product is one of the things that shows the campaign is not a scam. That is why I believe it is better to invest in ready-made products ICOs.

I think this is very good idea to stay away from scam project.
As we know, there are some project remain scam and just want to collect money from investor. So invest in ico project which has real working product would be better.

[markers]

I absolutely agree with the thesis that it is better to invest in projects that have products at hand. However, during the time when many projects attract millions of dollars with just plans to create something and prices of their tokens go straight to the north just after ICOs, it is very easy to lose patience and attention, looking for a worthwhile project.

[parekoy]

i agree, some ICOs might be okay to invest in if the team have a good trackrecord. however as a thump rule i would not invest in any ico that does not have atleast a beta product.

This season even having a good coin name, low supply coins, good team and management, good white paper and good in everything except having a good project the ICO or coins will never have a good price in the future. That would be the most important.

[kingtoixo]

Despite exists some projects that doesn't have any prototype or product but have a great value in crypto market, I think is better if the company show first some kind of "product" that helps to understand what the company needs and where they want to go.

[mrproblem]

By the way I should remind people a product is not just a good or an hardware. It can be a software or a service or a functionality.

[Prodigan786]

Yes i do agree completely with your view atleast in 2018 onwards people has to support the project atleast Physical existence company or one working product . There is lots of ICO coming up with concept which they find it inm dream finally executing nothing we have seen lots of ICO like that in 2017 . So people has to be wise and do some research about company instead being greedy and ainvesting for dreaming millionaire.

[yugyug]

ICO is closely related to crowdfunding or an IPO in stock market, so it is divided into 2 . 1 is for existing product/development/service that need additional fund to expand or to grow and the other 1 is to fund the project proposal in order to materialise the  project. so either of them expected to have a good result to attract more investors.

[bluehodl]

Okay, that's the basic rule we have to keep to avoid scams.

By the way, good to know about Kick-city.

[maot4]

Its a bit of a tough one, and agree that due to many scams about the way  to go now is to at least se a prototype, however there have been a few scam project that had prototypes where they even made the community test it, for example Ziber ICO. and the likes of Ethereum did not have a working product when they did their ICO neither did the likes of Stratis. so it's a fine balance really. The fundamentals still holds true through, researching the team, the advisors, the prototype, registered company etc etc

[skelethon]

Lots of ICO without product still running and get good result, i think product is a small percent to decide that ico good or not.

Yeah but a working product usually means a successful ICO 9/10 times. Of course, there are other ways to measure how successful it'll be but you can tell a lot from their product.

[aleksandra_kickcity]

Okay, that's the basic rule we have to keep to avoid scams.

By the way, good to know about Kick-city.

Thank you! You can join Telegram chat community https://t.me/kickcity_chat

[mrcastelo]

Never ever invest in any ico not just product without any thorough research being done. Make sure to know the people behind it, white paper , road map and other relevant things about the ICO

[webmone]

I was wondering, why a lot of projects don't have such an important thing for a successful ICO as a product.

When a company has a product it means they have it to develop. In such case, a company shows why they need ICO and how the company will be growing. What is more, there is more trust because a company has experience in a field they are working.

For example, KickCity company that exists two years. KickCity an event platform that generates revenue and has a Helsinki government grant. KickCity needs ICO to make business bigger and to become a decentralized platform where every user is rewarded for ticket promotion.

On the other hand, no product ICOs can prove their success just in theory. There is no proof base that product will be developed and will be working right.

In such unstable industry as ICO everything has to be under control. The product is one of the things that shows the campaign is not a scam. That is why I believe it is better to invest in ready-made products ICOs.

I also think that you need to invest in those projects that already have a ready-made minimal product and the team has enough experience to successfully implement the idea. I hope soon ICO will begin to adjust to avoid losing money because of scammers.

[pearlsome]

Yes, you are absolutely right that investing money in a finished product is much safer. But many good ideas are not possible without investment. And they are trying to attract money on their turn from ICO. Therefore, not always a good project has a ready product that can show. However, I do not invest in projects "a flight to the moon in 2050".

[jacquelinecr]

I was wondering, why a lot of projects don't have such an important thing for a successful ICO as a product.

When a company has a product it means they have it to develop. In such case, a company shows why they need ICO and how the company will be growing. What is more, there is more trust because a company has experience in a field they are working.

For example, KickCity company that exists two years. KickCity an event platform that generates revenue and has a Helsinki government grant. KickCity needs ICO to make business bigger and to become a decentralized platform where every user is rewarded for ticket promotion.

On the other hand, no product ICOs can prove their success just in theory. There is no proof base that product will be developed and will be working right.

In such unstable industry as ICO everything has to be under control. The product is one of the things that shows the campaign is not a scam. That is why I believe it is better to invest in ready-made products ICOs.

I will also add to this and say that if an ICO doesn't have a working product can be dodgy, yes!  Usually projects have a roadmap that will show when the product will be available for use, even if its in BETA or in Demo form. Usually projects with no products are scams, but sometimes you get the ICOs that work hard on gathering the funds to help create the actual product.

[Tonygold1967]

I was wondering, why a lot of projects don't have such an important thing for a successful ICO as a product.

When a company has a product it means they have it to develop. In such case, a company shows why they need ICO and how the company will be growing. What is more, there is more trust because a company has experience in a field they are working.

For example, KickCity company that exists two years. KickCity an event platform that generates revenue and has a Helsinki government grant. KickCity needs ICO to make business bigger and to become a decentralized platform where every user is rewarded for ticket promotion.

On the other hand, no product ICOs can prove their success just in theory. There is no proof base that product will be developed and will be working right.

In such unstable industry as ICO everything has to be under control. The product is one of the things that shows the campaign is not a scam. That is why I believe it is better to invest in ready-made products ICOs.

Yes absolutely agree, and companies with already existing products will not put their reputation under question.

[Zab_O]

Totally agree. There should be at least a working prototype with some user base. Plus, now the US government is looking closely into ICO's that didn't have a ready product and sold their tokens. Tezos is being sued for instance.

[imjustp]

I've said a load of times that not all ICOs are a scam but you're right in that a lot of them are. You need to know what to look for I guess

[upisdown]

I absolutely support your position on investing funds in projects that do not have any product. Of course, this should not be done, because nothing prevents them from simply leaving us with our money. It is always more credible and safe to consider something in which actually exists.

[miklesm]

I agree with you, it is really risky to invest in the project without working product. However, there were a number of projects without prototypes and they were raising millions of dollars and made really good products afterwards.