Never invest no product ICOs

[Big Bollos]

Even if the ICO has a product, it does not mean that it will be accepted by the market. In addition,  there is a trend when the ICO tokens significantly drop in price.

[zxfffz]

I agree with your point of view, I think that the ICO provided by the product is more suitable for investment, it is more secure and more trustworthy!

[princeyeboah]

It appears to be that most ICOs without a working product normally do not do well, maybe before or after the ICO. Most of these projects do not meet market expectations and normally dwindles from the market. I know of several ICOs who never released their working product till date and the coins of these products are now "shit" coins.

[Begun652]

it is obvious that the risk is a little less when the project has a product, but such a project can be fraudulent or not to collect the necessary amount and not be realized

[kangkilokang]

It appears to be that most ICOs without a working product normally do not do well, maybe before or after the ICO. Most of these projects do not meet market expectations and normally dwindles from the market. I know of several ICOs who never released their working product till date and the coins of these products are now "shit" coins.

not all of them have to have a working product, many ICOs offer active services and focus on online business without having real products, the most important is how they can survive in the market turmoil, almost all projects that just touch the soft cap can not do a lot to convince traders in the exchange market and this looks as a very real factor.

[samycoin]

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 its important to ico that have product because they can develop that in many years so the project can run smoothly even it's a long run project. If the ICO is don't have a product and not reach their goal in ICO it cause of losing of the project

[beami]

Yes, I agree with everything you say. It is better if we want to invest in ICO, we should first know the products on the ICO. Because if the product looks, of course, it is clear evidence that ICO that we want to invest has been successful. So we will not hesitate to invest in the ICO we choose.

[Newsky]

This is a good analysis. Before the ICO created the prototype, the company launched and discovered the investment, which meant it was really effective and experienced, knew the weaknesses of the project and would overcome them. ICO without a product is like a scam and it will not gain people's trust.

[iamreal]

For sure, it is not good to invest project that doesn't have product or the one that is only ideas on white, having product shows the team is ready and can perform the job, even if they don't have product, let them have mvp or test net etc.

[tulpash]

Yes, I agree with everything you say. It is better if we want to invest in ICO, we should first know the products on the ICO. Because if the product looks, of course, it is clear evidence that ICO that we want to invest has been successful. So we will not hesitate to invest in the ICO we choose.

In the past, there were examples of successful ICOs that did not have a finished product or even mpv. But in my opinion at the moment the project should already have at least mpv in order to conduct the ICO. And this is really important. Only in this case ICO can be successful.

[bournekin]

I also wonder about it. The ICO with the ready-product will be more promising as it is valuable and acceptable in the product after in the market. In addition, the ICOs may also create the products after the ICOs are successful. In this case, the product is very important as one of the elements that we must pay attention to deciding to invest in ICO or not. It has more promising to rise in the future.

[Blackpanther399]

The probability that the ICO will prosper are those ICO with tangible products. Let us support those kind of ICO's, with this We can assure that the system will not collapse. It still shows that , the team are experienced and can deliver their vision.

[Television123]

Yes you are right, Most of the successful ICOs had a complete product behind them. Ideas can be interesting but no one knows how the implementation will be done. I also feel that one should invest in ICOs having a product backing them.

[manirest]

I agree.  Investing in a company without a product is very risky.  And most likely you will lose your money.

[dolcefarniente]

Investments in some ICO campaigns, which even already have an initial product, may, in the future, not bring the expected results and profits.
These are projects related to the offline business, for the subsequent operation of which, do not need blockchain and tokens.

[spike420211]

I agree with you. If the project does not have at least an alpha or beta version of the product, this means that the project is not competitive, and it is difficult to predict how it will behave itself, even after the product is released. One thing is for sure it will have a bad effect on the price of the token.

[Megashaw]

I agree. Investors and people should see beyond fancy whitepaper and enquire to see what the project has to offer in terms of services or products. With that you can see what you are putting your money in to develop.

[snaper14]

I totally agree with the idea not to invest in icos who sell just a dream but have nothing to bring in market. Some of them may rise in a short term but at the end will be extinct

[realestates15]

This is outright correct. Many ICOs last year are now gone because they don't have any MVP. All they have is a promise. but in the end they don't produce. Investors should first see if they would really release any MVP. After ICO, their token should  have  immediate utility. It's one of the factors to consider in investing.

[Barbarian]

At the end it is your decision, there are some that prefer to invest only in projects like the ones you are describing but the problem is that many are going to do the same and invest in them while if you invest in a coin that does not have anything yet you could lose your money but your profits can be better.