Never invest no product ICOs

[murinked]

I will not invest in projects without an interesting and strong product, I think that it is useless and dangerous.

You're right.  Now a lot of scam projects without a product and risk is not worth it.  It is better to find a good and promising company.

[okeanis]

I will not invest in projects without an interesting and strong product, I think that it is useless and dangerous.

I completely agree.  Especially now when a lot of scam companies.  And if the company has a product, then more money is invested in this company.

[Grinjos]

Of course, you should not risk investing in a company without a product, especially if you do not want to lose your money. 

[Leto84]

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

[debianbro]

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.

Now investing in any ICO is very risky.  And even if ICO is successful, there is a great chance that the price of a coin on the market will be very low.

[Faradeo39]

I think you can invest in a company without a product but the risk of losing all the money is much higher.

[StImelda]

It sounds like a reasonable proposal now as the number of failed ICOs is on the increase. Investors should demand some sort of a  minimum viable product to give them assurances that the team has the expertise and integrity to move the project to completion.

[yinoye]

Good point you have there. An ICO project that already has a working or existing product or use case can be less risky and raise confidence amongst investors because they already have an idea of what their money is being used to develop. Though investing in ICOs with no working product yet can be highly risky, some of them really need the funds to start developing the proposed products.

[minlirto]

I also advise not investing in a company without a product.  A company with a product is more likely to succeed in the future.

[mboileau]

 It's true that most of the initial coin offerings that are proved to be fraudulent in nature are by those people who are actually involved with industries as you-you know that ICO is a great marketing strategy so this is an unpaid marketing scheme for most

[alina_2001_12_01]

The most amazing thing is that in these projects, without any product, people still invest money, sometimes some projects, reminds startup which dont know what to do, but they want money for this

[Brimtorl]

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.

Sometimes it is worth investing in a company without a product, if this company has a very promising project.

[korean1999]

Yes, that is my criteria when investing in ICO projects. Because we can observe their business process through their product. From there we can decide whether to invest more or not.
Investing in ICOs is not easy, we can become poor if we invest in bad ICOs.

[vin1103]

yeah thats true, so many icos just have theory, invest in ready made icos not giving best profit, but thats can giving more scure because the project is success, its different if you invest new project ico, invest with price very cheap but thats can give you big profit if success, big profit always have big risk too

[Nicolas Bebek]

Indeed the product in the ICO is a judgment that is important. Because an ICO with products that are already there, and we can try. Is positive, will be far from the ICO that exists only in the draft without real action. This according to my view.

[kingdoi]

Sometimes startups are seeking for funds through ICOS for which the fund will be used for development. They have no other source to sustain of to develop the idea they have in mind. Whereas, some projects with existing products seeks for further funding for wider reach. As well, there are startups with existing products but not increasing the token value, why? one of the reasons is adoption. Startups should focus on partnership and networking too for the "product" to be really used in real life.

[ternyabin]

Indeed the product in the ICO is a judgment that is important. Because an ICO with products that are already there, and we can try. Is positive, will be far from the ICO that exists only in the draft without real action. This according to my view.

It is important that the product is part of the project that the market needs. Only in this case the project will be successful and investors will profit from their investments.

[pokeviktor]

I think it is necessary to invest in ICO platforms where the product is ready. Thus cryptocurrency sector is going to continue to grow and use more money everyday digital economy, the economy of the future.

[rainmonsoon]

Myself, I like those financial blockchain "platform" (not only "product") projects with the greatest potential that can potentially transform the vast global financial services industry. I have been recently following Stellar that is generally on the rise and the tokens issued on the Stellar platform - now there is a bump like in any cryptocurrency over the past few days, but generally Stellar is on the rise because of the prospective Coinbase listing and other advances. This will also boost tokens issued on the Stellar platform...

My most recent find among alts is AXU, "Argentas Exchange Unit" token issued on the Stellar platform and listed and verified on the Stellarport decentralized exchange, now only at its pre-distribution, or pre-ICO phase. A true hidden diamond, with low profile so far. Experienced people clearly, and cool tech for decentralizing and revolutionizing global banking - their website at argentas.io.

The pre-ICO price is 50% cheaper than the ICO price, a sure winner IMO, and I will certainly get some. They also have an ANN thread, I think here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4431900.0. I dug really deep in their content, and it is really cool stuff But don’t forget your own research!

[adejoke444]

In the first place, why should you consider to invest in an ICO that has no product to show that they are already in the business line for long with lots of experience?