Never invest no product ICOs

[aleksandra_kickcity]

Good and success ICOs has a working product than to thus who has not, this is also the bases most of the investor to invest their money on ICO because they know that it is not a scam because of a visible projects.

surprisingly some of them don't care about product at all. they are interested in making money fast

[squidiot438]

Such a suggestion is very useful for novices, novices really don't want to participate in ICO, at least now many ICO projects are not good, unless you have experience, don't try to invest in ICO.

Ironically, there's no other way to gain experience but to actually begin ICO investing. Anyway, ICOs are indeed high risk compared to investing in tokens/projects that already have historical data for reference, but the rewards are very high in ICOs, could well even be the highest among all crypto investment options.

The sad part, some ICO investors have quit or are waiting for better investment systems to avoid losing their funds. Speaking of good ICOs , I've been following MenloOne lately, a decentralized ICO listing platform where its CEO claims to have solved various issues that investors face in ICOs.  link to their site &Whitepaper: https://www.menlo.one/

[dommerty]

I personally invest only in ICOs with working product. Competency is high in this industry and if team can't provide investors with MVP at least, does it have any chances to become number 1 in industry?

[Fantastickarl]

For an ico, its always good for one to invest into projects that have real products as it guarantees confidence in the mind of every investor that this project is really ready and serious about their project. Their are quite some projects that does not have products but having a working product is a plus for every ico

[Incodium Coin]

To me, it appears that the two major benefits to product-associated ICOs are:

1) it creates value that is easy for even new investors to understand. It's likely that investors will understand the value of a product well before they truly understand the value of any particular coin. And if more people believe in something ==> the more they invest ==> the a much higher chance to predict increases in value.

2) it shows that the team behind the ICO is more likely trying to build an actual company and play the long-game. This of course, is the kind of investment an investor wants to be making. One that endures and compounds over time. 

[Sanderion]

I personally invest only in ICOs with working product. Competency is high in this industry and if team can't provide investors with MVP at least, does it have any chances to become number 1 in industry?

More than 90% of ICO collect funds without having a working product. And those projects that have a product, do not let everyone in ICO in a row - only accredited investors! In fact, this is the beauty of ICO! You can collect money at the earliest stage of development, which is important for teams without the support of venture funds! And only thanks to such a system of financing, investors can do x5, x10 and more on these projects!

[mynamehere]

I personally invest only in ICOs with working product. Competency is high in this industry and if team can't provide investors with MVP at least, does it have any chances to become number 1 in industry?

More than 90% of ICO collect funds without having a working product. And those projects that have a product, do not let everyone in ICO in a row - only accredited investors! In fact, this is the beauty of ICO! You can collect money at the earliest stage of development, which is important for teams without the support of venture funds! And only thanks to such a system of financing, investors can do x5, x10 and more on these projects!

The volume of using the token is smaller than the crypto currency, since the token is originally an element of a closed ecosystem. In this respect, the crypto currency can be compared with US dollars, and a token - for example, with metro tokens.

[madoka]

I additionally ponder about it. The ICO with the prepared item will be all the more encouraging as it is important and satisfactory in the item after in the market. Likewise, the ICOs may likewise make the items after the ICOs are fruitful. For this situation, the item is essential as one of the components that we should focus on choosing to put resources into ICO or not. It has all the more encouraging to ascend later on.

[ifirina]

I totaly agree with autor. What else can be more important for project if not a product?
Coin can have a value for a while based only on community believe and without a product. But eventually, there should be REAL value of the project. It should solve REAL problem(s) and business need(s). No matter how well the project was advertised and how cool the team is, only the existence of product ensures that project has a future.
Projects which don't have a product will die and it will be rather sooner than later. Actually, we can observe it right now.

[Meepers]

Not all ico are dump because it has no product, many ico have product but it still dump too, so just read the whitepepper, depend of my experiemce good coin have low suppy, fast transaction, and have active developer . Even an ICO with a product could be a scam, if the product is bad or is not even created or planning on being created. It could be like a lot of this kickstarter campaigns which promise something and just completely under-deliver. 

[jmix2018]

yeah youre right !! dont invest in that ICOs has no products! because this ICOs has could scamd i think!! but some othere has been migret to toher ICOs to combine there IDEA and Platform!!

[wojiu732]

In the context of understanding the provision of products and services, combined with the product's comprehensive product analysis, I believe that rational investment is necessary.

[chocolaty]

This is why it is better to participate in ICOs that have working products because it means that it is less likely a scam since you can actually see a product being developed througout the ICO. But a working product will not guarantee that the ICO is real because there are still fraudulent ones with fake working product.

[U2018]

Such advice is very good for novices, and novices must pay attention to learning such knowledge. But for an old player who has been involved for a few years, this is useless, and real investors can see the power behind the project.

[Tefenyt]

No, ..no this is the wrong supposition of exhorting that not put resources into ICO. Be that as it may, I figure everyone ought to put resources into ICO yet think before which organization they will contribute. Continuously track the whitepaper of the organization and read altogether about their task and investigate the SWOT examination and ascertained hazard if the undertaking is feasible in long haul or not.

[bitljus]

I also do not advise you to risk and invest in such companies.  It is better to spend time and find a good and promising company.

[Morgann]

Such advice is very good for novices, and novices must pay attention to learning such knowledge. But for an old player who has been involved for a few years, this is useless, and real investors can see the power behind the project.

Yes you are right, those amateurs will just focus on earning profit immediately and they did not know how long term investment works so they cannot determine what coin is better to invest and to avoid.

[Ucy]

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 have thought about this too (the product first before ICO), not as easy as you think. What if you want to create a physical product that requires a lot of funding?

I think the most important thing is proof you are knowledgeable/experienced in your area of interest with your idea clearly laid out.  Of course there should be other experienced people or experts to review your work to be sure it is viable.

[gloporo]

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.

In a company without a product, it is worth investing only part of the money and only if the company has a very promising project.

[LimeFeline]

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've also seen threads on ICO's without White Paper. In both scenarios I'd avid such projects at any cost.