How important are ICO advisors?

[peter.from.penn]

When most people evaluate ICOs, they consider the advisors.  However, most are looking for big names in the crypto sphere.  In my opinion, it's more important to look for industry experts outside of crypto.  The goal of most blockchain projects is to gain usage and adoption in the real world, and expert advisors with credentials in major industries open doors to new markets.  At the end of the day, when projects exhaust their ICO funds, they must earn revenues.  What do you think?

[1715110077]

1715110077

[squatz1]

ICO advisors, while helpful aren't something which should force people into making an investment in a company or not. Advisors can only do so much, and in most companies they're only around for someone to get a nice paycheck, plus you don't want to have too many advisors as you're just wasting capital on too many people who are doing nothing.

They're important, though but people should know that a big name isn't everything. Everyone has had their own array of failed ventures.

[Andrey123]

It's useless to listen to their advice ...
These people are already so rich, and they are paid to make them praise a company.
And if something goes wrong, they just shrug their shoulders.

At the time of the 2008 crisis, many advisers to the head of the Federal Council gave advice, as a result, thousands of people were left without housing, and they were not even judged normally.

[gaurav@zup]

It's very important to have advisers in any new industry as they guides the team to understand the underlying challenges and how to solve them.
But unfortunately nowadays the ICOs are listing advisers like a Fish market sale and most of which are not real so do  your due diligence and see to it that the advisers those who are listed are really the part of the team.
Most of the time the advisers are being listed just because of the big fat famous name but the need of the advisers are in every company  has specific role
* Tech and development adviser
* Marketing and sales adviser
* Financial adviser
* Operations adviser
see to it that each adviser listed are related to some of the above roles or else don't bother to invest your hard earned money just because a Actor or a sports player is a part of the team.

[Herbert2020]

ICO advisors. 

this sounds more like a new version of the same old scams known as "Pumping Groups" where they pretend they are giving "trading signals" and use fancy words for it but in fact they a scam pump and dump group ripping newbies off.

The goal of most blockchain projects is to gain usage and adoption in the real world,

ICOs have been around for a while now and they have been receiving a lot of money. show me ICO that actually gained some real world usage and not just remained on exchanges and got pumped and dumped then we can use that as our own point of reference for analyzing ICOs.

...but the problem is such ICOs do not exist!

[CrazyCryppa]

I think what is really important is to distinguish between advisors who will actually assist a particular project and who are there just because they've been paid a handsome amount to list their face on the website.

[metenjean]

I don't think advisor really give any advise to any ICOs nowadays, i think its more like their brand ambassador which being paid to promote their ICOs rather than giving advices about how the project should go. Anyone can become an advisor and i think recently John McAfee become the hottest advisor in ICOs and i think he already endorse a lot of ICOs not to mention he become advisor to ICOs such as UTK (Universa), or Bob's Garage, etc.

[kaya11]

They're important, though but people should know that a big name isn't everything. Everyone has had their own array of failed ventures.

They are not really that important to me. They just fill up the ICOs' websites and an additional payment and funds will be slashed off. Most ICO failed even they have good advisers on-board.
It's best to hire more developers and paid to work fellows out there than people who do nothing and just waiting for the payment. The best adviser would be if there is, none other than Satoshi nakamoto, he can foresee the what relies ahead, but I guess he won't do that.

[googs84]

I think advisors are not that important as we are discsuing here because ICO is something that is not in the hands of advisors or they can’t predict the right things for it so surely. Though they might speculate few project path very surely then also it doesn’t mean the path will follow like that until the end. It’s all about the public buzz when it comes to the ICO selection or project roadmaps. It must be know what majority of the people like or dislike and the final decisions or advisory must be taken from that voting. So this is why I believe advisors are not that important.

[trobin]

Personally I don't really care too much. Let's take Kyber as an example. They have Vitalik as an advisor which bought them a lot of hype in the ICO stage but since then you really wouldn't have any idea that he was an advisor. Ultimately a project will be evaluated on the final release and an advisor won't have too much say or input in to this, they might help navigate a few situations but won't make a bad project in to a good one.

[Yaunfitda]

When most people evaluate ICOs, they consider the advisors.  However, most are looking for big names in the crypto sphere.  In my opinion, it's more important to look for industry experts outside of crypto.  The goal of most blockchain projects is to gain usage and adoption in the real world, and expert advisors with credentials in major industries open doors to new markets.  At the end of the day, when projects exhaust their ICO funds, they must earn revenues.  What do you think?

I think they are very helpful but you still need to do your homework and do your due diligence if you really want to invest in a certain ICOs. But I don't know though if experts outside of crypto would be helpful. The only experts that I can consider to be helpful are those who really know their stuff. So I have to disagree looking at experts outside the cryptosphere.

There are a lot of in deep experts out there and most of them have really a good background and experience that you have to consider what they have to say.

[squatz1]

Personally I don't really care too much. Let's take Kyber as an example. They have Vitalik as an advisor which bought them a lot of hype in the ICO stage but since then you really wouldn't have any idea that he was an advisor. Ultimately a project will be evaluated on the final release and an advisor won't have too much say or input in to this, they might help navigate a few situations but won't make a bad project in to a good one.

This is what I mean when I spoke before, advisors can be used to hide a company (or in this case, a coins) failure at having any value at all. So if the coin in question is simply stacking advisors, it'd be fair to notice that they might just not have anything going on and might screw you due to them not having a working product and just wanting the hype to make a couple bucks.

Don't put all your trust and faith in a couple peoples faces, names, and titles. It could all be a sham anyway.

[gamerfan]

When most people evaluate ICOs, they consider the advisors.  However, most are looking for big names in the crypto sphere.  In my opinion, it's more important to look for industry experts outside of crypto.  The goal of most blockchain projects is to gain usage and adoption in the real world, and expert advisors with credentials in major industries open doors to new markets.  At the end of the day, when projects exhaust their ICO funds, they must earn revenues.  What do you think?

I agree with your point of view. Advisors are very important anyway for marketing purposes too, because if people see that "big names" are advisors, they are more prone to invest...

[BatuhanU]

If you are searching for flipping ICOs, you should probably consider big name crytpo advisors as they will create hype and will be a good way for marketing. But if you want to hold the projects, instead of looking at advisors that are well-known in the crypto space, you should look at industry experts outside of crypto as you said.

[vera555]

It's useless to listen to their advice ...
These people are already so rich, and they are paid to make them praise a company.
And if something goes wrong, they just shrug their shoulders.

At the time of the 2008 crisis, many advisers to the head of the Federal Council gave advice, as a result, thousands of people were left without housing, and they were not even judged normally.

Пoлнocтью c вaми coглacнa)

[DesmondHayes]

When most people evaluate ICOs, they consider the advisors.  However, most are looking for big names in the crypto sphere.  In my opinion, it's more important to look for industry experts outside of crypto.  The goal of most blockchain projects is to gain usage and adoption in the real world, and expert advisors with credentials in major industries open doors to new markets.  At the end of the day, when projects exhaust their ICO funds, they must earn revenues.  What do you think?

I agree with your point of view. Advisors are very important anyway for marketing purposes too, because if people see that "big names" are advisors, they are more prone to invest...

The real problem with the ICOs lies in the false representation of the fake advisors. Some team( most of the teams) are showing the large group of the popular advisors and in the end, it is revealed that these certain advisors are not even aware that their name had been involved in the promotion of the certain projects. Scams are popular nowadays and every investor must be very careful if he wants to pick the proper project that is true and believable. To find out the real truth about the connection of the big names with the ceratin ICO projects try to search Linkedin, Twitter or every social network and try to look the connection between the advisors and the team behind the ICO. If even the slight mistake or false advertising is found step back and run.

As for the ICO developers who are looking for the big advisor I would recommend to choose at least 5 advisors because every advisor has his/her own perspective that is vital for the ICO success. Advisors are the must-have factor if the developers want to succeed in their project. They don't have to be big names( even if the big name will attract a lot of investors it can cost you financially).The advisors with the proper knowledge are crucial for the certain ICO success but false advisors are leading only to the demise in the end.

[Beerwizzard]

I think that most part of those advisors usually don't even read the project's White Paper and all cooperation probably consist of a single skype call where they discuss only the basic concept of the project. Also the result of working with advisors us almost always not disclosed. Which means that a decent and experienced guy could take a look at ICO, say that it is garbage (or something like "your idea is bad but to start working on ICO you need to do..."). I wouldn't recommend to put much attention on advisors unless there is someone like Vitalik Buterin among their list.

[mi56374100]

I think ICO consultants are more like brand ambassadors, because ICO is not in the hands of consultants, or they can't predict the right things. Most of the time, consultants are more focused on marketing purposes.

[BlockEye]

I think ICO consultants are more like brand ambassadors, because ICO is not in the hands of consultants, or they can't predict the right things. Most of the time, consultants are more focused on marketing purposes.

They are the key of the project, they matters especially on making decisions, they are the one's that can tell whether such action will have an impact, it's their experience that the companies paying for. And we should also know the Advisors background when looking at an ICO.

[trobin]

Personally I don't really care too much. Let's take Kyber as an example. They have Vitalik as an advisor which bought them a lot of hype in the ICO stage but since then you really wouldn't have any idea that he was an advisor. Ultimately a project will be evaluated on the final release and an advisor won't have too much say or input in to this, they might help navigate a few situations but won't make a bad project in to a good one.

This is what I mean when I spoke before, advisors can be used to hide a company (or in this case, a coins) failure at having any value at all. So if the coin in question is simply stacking advisors, it'd be fair to notice that they might just not have anything going on and might screw you due to them not having a working product and just wanting the hype to make a couple bucks.

Don't put all your trust and faith in a couple peoples faces, names, and titles. It could all be a sham anyway.

Within reason yes, I think mostly you need to consider the advisors and their reputation, I don't think the example I gave is in line with what you thought but there are definitely some 'advisors' who will just back a project for their own gain instead of because they actually believe in it.