WHY DO YOU THINK NOT ALL ICO's PUSH THROUGH?

[ramzhies]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

[1715077377]

1715077377

[1715077377]

1715077377

[1715077377]

1715077377

[GazorpPozorpec]

I think it's been too early to say that. Many of the projects held ico in 2017 and will begin to show the result only in 2018. You just have to wait.

[Julunguul]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

I think its because they have seen the realize noe that mostly ICO is just a short term profit. Most people were just even sell under the ICO price. And also not like the old days, people's interest is getting split into various kind of ICO so the price cant boosts effectively

[$$$sparkles$$$]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

Aside from the fact that there are so many of them out there, a lot of them do not have an actual product to back up their project. Many sell ideas which they actually earn profit from. Similar to what Bill Gates did to IBM where he sold the idea of having a Disk Operating System in the form of a floppy disk! But he did come up with the actual product and that made him a billionaire. In the case of some ICO's, they don't even reach the point of creating the "real stuff." Once the profit has been attained, devs would tend to run off!

[luckylucy123]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

Aside from the fact that there are so many of them out there, a lot of them do not have an actual product to back up their project. Many sell ideas which they actually earn profit from. Similar to what Bill Gates did to IBM where he sold the idea of having a Disk Operating System in the form of a floppy disk! But he did come up with the actual product and that made him a billionaire. In the case of some ICO's, they don't even reach the point of creating the "real stuff." Once the profit has been attained, devs would tend to run off!

I hope this is not the case I was looking at NTOK but they have failed to answer my key concerns about their product.

[Tipstar]

There is a heavy increase of number of ICO in a give period of time and hence the amount of capital they aspect. There is no that level of increment of investors and the capital they can spend. So, investors have gone choosy and would choose an ICO based on their project and presentation.
Popular ICO's seem to be easily meeting their cap while some are just going unknown.

[Brothersav]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

I think its because they have seen the realize noe that mostly ICO is just a short term profit. Most people were just even sell under the ICO price. And also not like the old days, people's interest is getting split into various kind of ICO so the price cant boosts effectively

Spot on. People are stuck in the mindset of short term gains. Crypto is not the normal stock market. I don't think people actually care about the product- as long as the ico delivers. This is why I have participated in Darico. There's incentive to hold long term. There's so many ICOs out there- how ever we have to wait for the next wave of investors to come back. All the money is drying up and held up in other coins.

[fempat]

I think it may be because of lack of a proper working knowledge of the project they're bringing. Some teams would just sit down to plan and under one month decide to bring out a product. No adequate knowledge, no prototypes. They just speculate that things wil fall into place when the money comes. But then they are caught unawares and begin to fidget. As a principle, I never invest n ICOs that don't have adequate time to plan and prepare their project.

[#CapsLOck]

I think it's been too early to say that. Many of the projects held ico in 2017 and will begin to show the result only in 2018. You just have to wait.

I've also experience in that kind of scenario because I also attended some campaigns last 2017 but the result comes from the year 2018, so basically time is the longest thing that you really have to wait the exact moment of the result, so basically sometimes thats the reason why ICO really not push through.

[JeffBrad12]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

Not for all of them can deliver their promises. For all of the choices a,b or even c. They are all not the main reasons.

Some project meets its hardcap it less than some minutes can't move forward toward the success caused by the team itself. There is a various case about that.

Just like the team was trying to change the plan in the middle of the development process.

The point was the team can't decide what will they do in the next step. It looks hard to do. And that was preventing the process.

[Alerter]

Key thing for ICO success is real product where blockchain usage does make sense, not just another "Google/Facebook/etc on blockchain". For example, ETH made fundraising much more simple, fast and easy, that's the main value of the platform.

[nc50lc]

First, the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) maybe similar to IPO but the whole platform is unregulated and the system that gives coins according to holder's stakes makes a perfect breeding ground for low/no budget scammers.

With that, real companies and entrepreneur groups struggle to be successful with their ICOs.
But if you think about it, they didn't even need ICO to start their business, if they were an established company they must have the budget to start.

People, especially today doesn't trust ICOs.
Most of those can't push through simply because they need better advertisement.
Not just ICO, anything can succeed with advertising. Whether if it was a scam or not, as long as they are reaching the market with eyecandies, there will be a high chance to succeed.

[dalesotpi]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

Aside from the fact that there are so many of them out there, a lot of them do not have an actual product to back up their project. Many sell ideas which they actually earn profit from. Similar to what Bill Gates did to IBM where he sold the idea of having a Disk Operating System in the form of a floppy disk! But he did come up with the actual product and that made him a billionaire. In the case of some ICO's, they don't even reach the point of creating the "real stuff." Once the profit has been attained, devs would tend to run off!

This is more likely the reason why, they don't have the actual product to sell, and so there is nothing to back up their project.
With an actual product, you are proving to your supporters that what's in the roadmap is attianed, and so you preserve their support to the project.

[Gabz999]

I think it's been too early to say that. Many of the projects held ico in 2017 and will begin to show the result only in 2018. You just have to wait.

Yeah! Not every ICO will be success right after of their lunch despite of a success of the crowd funding, they need time to achieve their goal stated on their roadmap.

[herurist]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

ICO program built by people with high skill and enough fund to start make an idea become reality. No one can say it will be done with success but how their hard work is the best point. We all know ICO is new coin ( product ) and there's no trust can created in short time. Besides that, old coin will take anticipation about new coin, such as create new services, more powerful system and also bonus. As trader/ investor, we only can follow and see the progress to replace fund. Fail or not only team know the truth and I don't care about it, I just want to grow up my capital.

[xda-developer]

Most of projects have created to raise money, and not vice versa.
The amounts that were collected for the implementation of projects are not adequate, because the launch of a spacecraft is cheaper than the amount collected for some ICOs.

[ksiazek7]

I mean in general only 1/3 of business make it.  Seems like it would hold true or very similar for ICOs.

[ICO Lancer]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

d. All of the above.

It's hard to generalize, but I think most ICOs have pretty bad marketing and/or funding. Also, people are more cautious and reluctant to invest now because of the scammy nature of ICOs.

[Yuuto]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

Pretty much C.

ICOs are a gamble and no matter how good it may seem, at the end of the day it'll be up to the community to hype up the coin that they have invested in. For the investor, the product is what makes it able to be hyped.

If they cannot meet their goals from their roadmap and whitepaper even though they may receive many rounds of excellent funding, they probably won't survive the first stages of ICO introduction.

[Huskarls]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

Pretty much C.

ICOs are a gamble and no matter how good it may seem, at the end of the day it'll be up to the community to hype up the coin that they have invested in. For the investor, the product is what makes it able to be hyped.

If they cannot meet their goals from their roadmap and whitepaper even though they may receive many rounds of excellent funding, they probably won't survive the first stages of ICO introduction.

2018 should be a good year for crypto.
However, unwittingly more and more ICOs are indeed leaning towards their funding results, it should have an "B" plan when it meets circumstances that cause the condition "A" not to meet the criteria.

It should also be suspicious that ICO is giving a lot of bonuses especially when seems no investors or weak marketing

[dangdangdang]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

the points are valid in my own perspective but one of the most valid reason why ICOs fail especially this year because their dev and marketing teams lack of knowledge on how to promote their ICO the competition gets tougher as more ICOs are running at the same time that which attracting crypto investors in order to gain more funding for the crypto projects.
 in fact, too many ICOs have no working products that's why most of them aren't hitting coin exchanges and suddenly vanished and some of  them as scams and fraud.

[CryptoTamer]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

I think " C ", because progress of project will be seen from that and investors will be disappointed if the team cann't achieve it for a long time
Roadmap is plans or targets that must be achieved, the project will move forward if the team works hard in developing their project and succeed as planned

[zeze18]

nowadays, ICO's are overwhelming and more than a handful. there are some success stories like ETH, NEO and the likes, but what you think are the reasons that despite a good team, the ICO did not flourish? some of them had reached the Caps, earlier than expected but was not able to move forward.

a. lack of end support?
b. funding?
c. unclear and not able to meet their goals as per roadmap?

Because people who joining the ICO not really want to support the project and just aiming form 100% profits.
That's why after the ICO the project is not running well because no support from investors.

[crampus]

I think the main reason is unclear and unable to fulfill its goals in accordance with the road map, because the teams set unrealistic goals in front of themselves