Why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line not conduct ICO?

[khufuking]

Because maybe Kik and Telegram did not need ICO in first place, in my opinion they just doing it for extra money, its like lets get millions of dollars for doing the exact same thing we are already doing . I do agree with some comments above not everything have to be build on blockchain and most of the time startups just threw blochchain word in for the sake of raising easy money, raising money in crypto space is much more easier than outside it, and in fact in my opinion one of the reason market suffering lately is we have a lot of outsider that do not care about crypto, they just make there ICO and liquidate what worth of millions of dollars of tokens into fiat and move on, and we have been milked that way since long .
I remember an DEX exchange that was really working great and I used it a lot we all know it " etherdelta " they had a working dex and everything and suddenly they decided to start an ICO, for some reason they wanted to raise millions for an already fully working project .

[hachiman13]

These companies have no need to tokenize their services; it is functioning as it should be.

The problem now is that because of the popularity of the blockchain tech, many people think that integrating blockchain into any concept/system/franchise/etc would be a good idea. But that is not the case.

[inesterdd]

As far as I know, the head of the messenger  Viber, reported earlier that the company is considering the possibility of issuing its own cryptocurrency. Other messengers may also consider this type of currency! A matter of time!

[neo10w]

This idea is a bit funny. They are all traditional industries. They are things that happened long ago. They are not coming out now.

[Tory-Tory]

My personal opinion is this: for companies registered in the US, the main obstacle is regulators, which can complicate the main activities. But for those who are registered in other countries, this is not needed for some reason, except for the Line

Line is planning to launch it's own global crypto exchange so it's up to them if they'll add an ICO for it.

https://www.ccn.com/messaging-giant-line-announces-new-global-crypto-exchange-excludes-u-s-japan/

[Dortira]

 I saying this is because they are not considering ICO as those things that you have said, advertisements hype and money earnings. Maybe they just don't trust cryptocurrency.

[ThunderFive]

Because they can be funding easily from IPO to get attracted by the big investment funds

[Ewox]

Its either they dont need it yet or maybe they have think about joining and conducting an ICO but its just not now. Maybe they are still thinking or still trying to figure out how they go about their ICO or something like that.

[Matic]

What do you think why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line have not yet launched their crypto platform?
But Kik and Telegram did it.
After all, companies can get 2 huge pluses:
1) to collect a large amount of money for ICO
2) add hype to marketing and popularity among users.

share your opinion

Maybe they are just waiting for the cryptocurrencies market to gain some more stability, and then they would be happy to issue their own cryptocurrency that you can exchange to the Bitcoin and pay for the services and goods.

[sindikat]

In any business you need to do only what you know well. Cryptocurrencies are financial projects. They should be engaged in financiers. Messengers are more technical projects whose main task is to provide good communication and privacy. Why risk a well-established business. In addition, cryptocurrencies are still very common in order to attract such companies.

[bitbunnny]

Probably the answer is very simple, they don't have relevant business case. Just because something is popular and will bring profit to one company that doesn't mean that is also good choice for some other.
Probably they have estimated that such project would not be profitable and cost benefit for them although it might bring them some extra popularity.
But there is no rush with time maybe the circumstances will change and they will make different businesses decision.

[BigDig]

everything is very simple, as i think. such digital whales will prefer to keep the current state of things and not risk the crypto market. Telegram's example is very exciting but as long as the platform does not fully function, I do not think that someone will follow their path.

[el kaka22]

Maybe because they dont need it.They gain lots of money already without conducting ICO project.There are lots of scam ICO project they might afraid it will give negative feedbacks in their company.So they rather stick to what they have and improved it more than risking the reputation of their company.

Yeah, if I have a product, the essence of looking for fund through ICO is to at least be able to use that fund to build the product further and develop it to a standard level for global usage and all I need is to get those who can believe in me and the product based on that aspect.

For products such as the ones mentioned by the OP, these are products that are already doing well in the social media and chat space, so trying to conduct ICO simply makes no sense to me. They will not be the first to do this anyway, as I have seen several old cargoes trying to eat the piece of the ICO cake, but it makes no single sense. In fact, I would suspect such move a whole lot.

[gambitcoin53]

What do you think why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line have not yet launched their crypto platform?
But Kik and Telegram did it.
After all, companies can get 2 huge pluses:
1) to collect a large amount of money for ICO
2) add hype to marketing and popularity among users.

share your opinion

uhm maybe their resources are just limited to being a social network, and their portfolios are intended to sustain them being a social network, plus they are prone to be hacked and has a secruty issues, unlike telegram, i think they have different system and platforms. funds are basically one of the reasons why.

[2start]

What do you think why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line have not yet launched their crypto platform?
But Kik and Telegram did it.
After all, companies can get 2 huge pluses:
1) to collect a large amount of money for ICO
2) add hype to marketing and popularity among users.

share your opinion

I don't think it does not make, but have not made. Maybe they're planning it and waiting for the right moment to publicize it. They are big companies, they have a lot of money, if they are launching ICO is definitely well planned first.

[upsidedown75]

What do you think why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line have not yet launched their crypto platform?
But Kik and Telegram did it.
After all, companies can get 2 huge pluses:
1) to collect a large amount of money for ICO
2) add hype to marketing and popularity among users.

share your opinion

These are working products from companies making huge amount of money with possible shareholders; thereby conducting an ICO is not necessary. ICO should be for new companies with product which could be a very huge one if pushed out and then funding is needed to do so which is more like buying stakes or shares in a company your believe will give you long term profit in the long run.

This is the reason why I feel a lot of companies running ICO on the same product that has been fetching them a lot of profit for years do not make any sense, unless of course, they are trying to introduce a new product.

[jaocoincrypto18]

What do you think why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line have not yet launched their crypto platform?
But Kik and Telegram did it.
After all, companies can get 2 huge pluses:
1) to collect a large amount of money for ICO
2) add hype to marketing and popularity among users.

share your opinion

ICO is only better for those products that will need to be introduce to the masses that is why most of the ICO are just new names in the market and not popular unlike the companies that you have mention, they are all already have their names in the market and already have build their reputations before the ICO was introduced so therefore they don't need this kind of marketing anymore.

[coinplus]

I think because they are well funded companies with values brands. They don’t need to scam their customers with a potentially scammy ICO to raise a few (hundred?) millions ruining their business.
Disclaimer:
I still have to find s single ICO that is not SCAM.

My two cents,
F1

Usually, the essence of public funding is to generate funds to build a start up with a product and use those funds to get it out there and take it to the top. For products that are already doing great for a very long time now and being used, where the owners are making shitloads from some of them at least, I do not  see any reason for ICO. Although, if conducted anyway, I do not know how the investors are going to perceive it, but one way, unless they want to integrate blockchain technology, I really do not see any point.

[squog]

With the bad press associated with ICOs i doubt these companies will risk their golden honor in allowing ICOs to advertise in their apps. Well i see youtube and other games in google stores and app stores actually advertising ICOs but then again it's a free for all. Maybe these communication apps could do it but i doubt it.

[Hui8]

What do you think why Viber, WhatsApp, skype, WeChat, Snapchat, IMO, Line have not yet launched their crypto platform?
But Kik and Telegram did it.
After all, companies can get 2 huge pluses:
1) to collect a large amount of money for ICO
2) add hype to marketing and popularity among users.

share your opinion

They are already pretty much billionaires in what they are doing. They have billions of customers and get paid from the memberships all the time. I guess they are earning money money from what they have already achieved.
Marketing? Why they need it at all? These kind of stuffs are already over the market and if you open the App Store and check the number of users then they have already achieved billions of downloads and more than 4.9 star ratings for their platforms. I dont really see any significance of jumping into an ICO for them.