80% of ICOs are Scams

[AndronBelikoFF]

The author is the captain of the evidence? Well, in fact, not even 80%, but 95%. By and large, even those coins that are now worth something in the end will not be needed by anyone and will not reach the stage of the finished product.

[1713242907]

1713242907

[1713242907]

1713242907

[1713242907]

1713242907

[lovewatchingfilm]

I wouldn't say that most ICOs are scam, but rather will never lead to anywhere, like most businesses. The space is too crowded. Most are not worth it, but necessarily a scam.

[mamarried]

I believe that soon ICO process would be transferred into something else similar to what we are heading in IPO, because right now ICO is the perfect tool to steal money from people. You can never know who will deceive you.

[sergiom]

I can say that you are exaggerating a bit,  because it is no evidence that 80% of ICO are a scam Projects. Probably you meant that they fail or have not enough success in your opinion. But this is definitely not what the scam is.

[Itcher]

This happens in all new areas. Let's remember DOT COM, there must have been 95-99% of fraudulent companies. But units worthy have changed the world such as Google and Amazon.

[Dandyhunter]

Yes, most projects turn out to be scammers. But we must be able to choose good projects. And I am confident that an experienced investor can find such projects.

[Jimtorko]

Now really a lot of scam projects.  And to find a good project is very difficult.  Therefore, most people buy coins on the market.

[abc_crypt]

This figure is probably a little exaggerated. Most ICO projects fail, not because it was originally planned, but because they did not manage to create the intended product competently.

[ponni92]

This is probably very much, I think that statistics show fewer scams of projects, as a result today we still have a very small number of normal projects, and if they are, then in the end very many projects can not raise money for the project.

[Nelly.G0211]

 I don't think the statistics is precise, but unfortunately lots of ICO turned out to be scam projects. And one question has occurred to me: so do they plan to be scammers from the very beginning or is it sometimes a spontaneous decision? Or maybe they face some problems of misunderstanding, cannot find a common ground and fall apart? I think, lots of people have heard about TEZOS project.. One of his developers just left with lots of money, but fortunately the rest of the team handled it in a great way and saved their project. But there are lots of similar but sad examples.  What do you, guys, think?

[Avatar2030]

Yes, the amount of scams is huge. I think regulators need to review many of the rules for investing in new projects and make them more stringent. It is necessary to strengthen the identification of the organizers of the ICO and control over the expenditure of money invested in the project.

[Cryptomonyet]

I don't think that the scam project is 80%, I think there are still many good projects out there and even over 50% of them. I think those who say a lot of ICO scam because of their own fault that they can't choose carefully, although it's hard to find a legit project.

[tungduong598]

I think that after some time only the figures will be clear when the projects either collapse or vice versa take off! now it makes no sense to guess, just wait and hope for success!

[kipozer]

The statistics are very terrible! I hope that people will very soon realize that we need a new model of fundraising that will very seriously show the intentions of people and people will also be responsible for what they are doing.

[Kayuslawal]

Very truly but this percentage is high though we have some good ones and many bad one in this system, we can just say its 50 50

[Jianailiang]

The statistics are very terrible! I hope that people will very soon realize that we need a new model of fundraising that will very seriously show the intentions of people and people will also be responsible for what they are doing.

To be exact, we need a regulatory body, a neutral regulator, with very high credibility, able to rate ICO, and exclude those scam icos.Obviously, this requires an institution with funds and power as an endorsement.

[buiviet173a]

Being clear, coin launches seldom are pure fraud. For me the concrete squeeze tends to be many times one atrocious business proposal.

[shollyen]

Seriously, there is nothing as saddening as investing your time and effort in  a fake ICO. The rate at which we have Fake ICOs is alarming and the sad part is that there is no regulatory body to curb it....... There should be a body that can look into this before it goes out of hand..

[echogomodrill]

Recently there was an article and wrote that 50% of companies that used ICO were bankrupt

[OnnoTunes]

Saw this study on twitter... https://twitter.com/Zeex_me/status/978981735101878272

I've seen a lot of people asking about how many legit ICOs there are, so I thought I'd share

Quote from the article: "The study begins by breaking down ICOs into 6 groups: Scam, Failed, Gone Dead, Dwindling, Promising, Successful. “On the basis of the above classification,” they wrote, “we found that approximately 81% of ICO’s were Scams, ~6% Failed, ~5% had Gone Dead, and ~8% went on to trade on a exchange.”

"Scams were defined by researchers as “Any project that expressed availability of [an] ICO investment (through a website publishing, ANN thread, or social media posting with a contribution address), did not have/had no intention of fulfilling project development duties with the funds, and/or was deemed by the community (message boards, website or other online information) to be a scam.”


DYOR people ...

Scam definition is confusing here. Projects can fail due to a lot of reason, but that doesn't mean cheating. But it's an interesting result that 8% of the project tokens getting listed in an exchange.