Never invest no product ICOs

[trako]

This is a correct determination. but some points are missing. if an ico does not bring innovation to the existing system, it is a completely unsuccessful project. for example repux and joy token. you will see how unsuccessful the project is in the future.
It was enough to examine in advance, but now it is not enough. good projects are getting smaller and smaller. we must be very careful.

[MasNizzer]

I agree that ICOs with a product are a better choice for investment and I would add also ICOs who are working on their prototype and beta version while also trying to raise funds through the ICO. For me the engagement of the team is an important factor and I would rather invest in a good project that is working on their prototype but keep their community in the loop, than an ICO with a product that is not very responsive to the community.

I do not think it's categorical. I actually agree if the product is real and true, because it has been invested in
ICO several times and never had a problem with it and went to the big plus. The main thing is to be able
to choose a project and have a good team of developers

[chankyleer]

I am agree with you, the finished product is an ideal condition for investment, but greater volatility and greater income can be obtained by investing in a promising idea that will later become a ready product! And Yes investment is always a risk!

[matjas]

I wouldn't judge how successful a project may become just by the existence of a product. There are projects that started with a good plan and a determined team and they have become successful and the other way round - projects like had an MVP or an alpha/beta, but failed in further development. You never know.

[thuthi7]

If the team does not have a product, but there is a good idea, it does not mean that nothing will come of it. There are so many smart people with good ideas. But they do not have the finance to implement these ideas. But the fact that there are very few such projects is a fact.

[Agamemnus]

This is the same thing that i said too, an ICO without a product is a dead coin and is just a scam and that is the truth. If an ICO has no product to offer then that means that it has no value besides being used for trading and you cannot hold such a coin for the long term and hoping for it to keep sticking around and mooning. Only invest in ICOs that have a good product

[eMaxie]

ICO is indeed something tricky 'cause they are no indicator that the project is no scam and is really in development, but with a proper analysis and time to know the product better, also after communicating with developers or something you will find ICOs that are really nice and promising. For me I've chosen one good one.

[steins19]

I believe that no on should invest if there is no product of ICOs. The reason is that there is higher risk of failure. Most likely this could be a scam. And you're investment will only be taken from you with no guarantee of return. Never trust an ICO that does not have any product or sense in their goals and objectives.

[maitexisi]

I couldn't agree with you more. Now, many ico doesn't have a ready-made product. If you invest in an ico that doesn't have a product, you may lose all your money, so think twice before you invest in an ico without a product.

[nguyenthidung9104]

i agree sometime because we never knew if the promising ICO is a scam it is better to be sure so we can know what we will invest and not but the crypto world is a risk taking world so it is up to you

[lunaelucemauram]

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.

That is why we need to make an evaluation of the ICO and ask questions: will this project have a good future? Does it answer the needs of its target market? Will it provide a good product? If the ICO did cannot answer some if this questions then it will have no future in the industry. However their are some ICO project out their that has good product and services but it is not successful because few people believed in the project.

[Traderbtcc]

If you continue like this. You might miss out on key gems currently under the radar. Majority of these ICOs have no prototype /MVP but they're still doing pretty well. ICOs are basically ways to fund startups during their development phase and So I don't really see it as a necessity. Even ICOs with MVP don't perform upon being listed on exchanges. So the prototype may not be that important but a solid team and strong community are  much more important.

[R9s]

Your argument is too one-sided. Although most of the ICOs are not worth investing a lot of money, you can still find those ICOs with potential. When you find a good ICO, why don't you invest in it?

[cewekimut]

Basically, the ready-product of an ICO is one of my considerations to participate in it. It sometimes presents that the ICO is really ready to invest or promote. Investing in no-product ICO may be too risky. For, we don't know exactly what makes consideration of investing in that kind of ICO.

[jayco25]

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 agree in your statement. ICO without product is a shitcoin/scam. If you want to choose best ICO you have to check the whitepaper and the team. Read what product they are offering and compare it to other. Uniqueness of one ICO to other is a big advantage.


#Support Vanig

[bcointt]

Good approach, but with reservations. If at team there are other working products, it will give me the reason for investment. Now the market is based on expectations and not always the product will be ready to ICO.

[Vova.vova]

I found out a lot about ICO for a long time, but I didn’t use it. But recently my brother told me about the project Vireo and I decided to try it. And now I’m happy. I got an interesting experience and a good profit. Check it!

[firewa]

Yes, I think this is a good suggestion, but I think there are only few ICOs that are worth investing in. I think finding them is a difficult and risky one.

[maot4]

i think with the current level of maturity of the cypto communities and expectations, most new project should ideally have a prototype or a workign MVP. I think the time has gone for when projects can or should be raising   millions without a proof of concept

[saycryptohello]

I absolutely support your position on investing funds in projects that do not have a product. Of course, this should not be done, because nothing prevents them from simply leaving us with our money.

and there are companies that have MVP, but this is, in fact, a quickly made prototype which does not make any sense. In this case, it is better to pay attention to companies with a working business.