ICOs should only create Tokens with Working Products or Services

[solkinsolali]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product or service it directly supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

[Reality5]

This is actually true. Most people only create this tokens because of trading it. Not all really have value.

[Argoo]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product it directs supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

This idea, of course, is good. However, to implement it, you need to create a special body that will decide who to conduct ICO, and who does not. There will be another bureaucratic body, in which corruption will surely thrive, because very large amounts of money will be constantly involved here. As a result, good and promising ICO projects that will not give bribes will not be allowed to conduct an ICO. So let it be better as it is. It is necessary for states to check and register only ICO teams, checking them only for the possibility of fraud on their part, and they should not interfere with the essence of the project. Only in this way will we be able to obtain independent and diverse projects, and let the market determine which of them is needed by society, and which one is not needed. Investors also need to delve deeply into the ICO projects and invest only in the best of them. Then everything will be all right.

[dumplingsandsushi]

I agree with what you say.

Actually, the whole speculation and "making money from nothing" icos have pretty much crashed and burned.
There are still hundreds of icos popping up, but the entire ICO market is pretty much dead.
It's actually not surprising when you take a step back and look at how insane the ico bubble was.
Now, after a whole year of the market crashing and being sluggish, investors have wised up and aren't throwing money at icos with only a whitepaper.

This of course, is good news, no one wants a crypto market where it's value is based on only speculation.
But, in a way, it has also been a bad thing.
Legitimate ICOS with amazing tech and amazing solutions have had a hard time just like all the others.
Take Neon Exchange, one of the best icos and most hyped one so far this year.
Even they are struggling.
Last year, a company like Neon exchange would have absolutely killed it.

[Patatas]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product it directs supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

Happy Realization I guess?

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

Every white-paper "claims" to bring something new to the society *virtual society* Exchanges just don't like people accepting these changes You know if one wanted to change the world through ICO's, they wouldn't create them in the first place.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

Every ICO is created to solve some social problem. However, they don't get past the exchanges.

[Aleksey1958]

I agree with you. So the token was the future, should stand behind it really work product.. Without this token will not survive for a long time.

[Baofeng]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product or service it directly supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

If this is the case then there's no need for ICO's because it seems that there's no unique project coming up and everything was redundant. I understand your sentiments but there's no regulatory body to enforce or implement this policy. So short term, project are going to be born every day, duplicates of other project in the past but still gullible investors are wiling to put up investments. This is how the game is played and I don't think it will simply evolve overnight. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, what I'm trying to drive up is that is going to be difficult because the market is free.

[bolshojkush]

All who have at least some relation to the cryptocurrency, have long been waiting for its application in real life. And I think it will happen soon.

[pinoyrichkids]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product or service it directly supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

I agree on you, many projects nowadays are just useless and nothing but a mere illusions, and an after being listed on the few exchanges, it will be dump because of the certain reasons, first would be their product is not that useful to the community, or no working product at all, this is one of the basis of the dumpers in trading, they really want to liquidate their assets, and make some money. I hope developers could understand the need for making a real project, not just an illusions.

[fumblingperch]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product it directs supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

This idea, of course, is good. However, to implement it, you need to create a special body that will decide who to conduct ICO, and who does not. There will be another bureaucratic body, in which corruption will surely thrive, because very large amounts of money will be constantly involved here. As a result, good and promising ICO projects that will not give bribes will not be allowed to conduct an ICO. So let it be better as it is. It is necessary for states to check and register only ICO teams, checking them only for the possibility of fraud on their part, and they should not interfere with the essence of the project. Only in this way will we be able to obtain independent and diverse projects, and let the market determine which of them is needed by society, and which one is not needed. Investors also need to delve deeply into the ICO projects and invest only in the best of them. Then everything will be all right.

I agree with you, but leave so as there is, too, cannot be. Every day there are more and more scams and not just scams and ordinary speculators who create projects and conduct ICO.

[muncuss]

All ICO with working product will happen only if we have ICO regulation, coz we alone can't do much thing as trash ICO boom is the side effect of cryptocurrency decentralization

[patz22]

I think you know for a fact that MOST ICO's doesn't have any working projects yet that's why they are conducting it and I believe that's the sole purpose on why they are doing it. And that's the risk in behalf of investors wherein if the project will not work, do not deliver results or a scam that's the loss anyways I'm not saying all but most investors only want profit without taking a look in the value of it in the future.

[AiloveYouks21]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product or service it directly supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

If all crypto people like you, crypto will get hearts in the community, unfortunately people just want to get money quickly but don't think about the products that have worked.
btw, Buddy already has a working product.

[CodyAlfaridzi]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product or service it directly supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

ICO tokens often have a very good and innovative project idea. The idea is useful and could solve an actual problem. Most developers fail in executing, actualizing, and making real product those ideas. Like you said, most of them enjoy the money without developing the project further.

This isn't an easy problem to solve because ICO basically means crowdfunding for random people. These developers have little incentive to continue the project once they got their money. Most token sink right after they hit an exchange and you can't sue them legally if they make little progress in the project, so small that you eventually give up to the project.

[tsaroz]

This is a good concept and if every ICOs came under regulations, a possibility.
Every fund raisers in real world through IPO needs to have at least some work done towards creating the product or service while ICO are started from a simple web template.

[stealth.money]

Enough of people just creating tokens just for the sole purpose of trading it in exchanges and making money after the ICO. In order for a token to survive or stand the test of time, there is need for it to have a working product or service it directly supports. This is what a lot of tokens are lacking today.

In my opinion, any token to be created should bring in something new. It must be a token that will add value to the society and not just for the purpose of trading it in exchanges and cashing out money.

If we actually want cryptocurrency to survive and appeal to the ordinary people, then we must create ONLY tokens relevant to the society's needs or solves at least a particular societal problem.

Only investing in old ICOs which already have working products

[Vlad_m]

Agreed!

Upcoming STOs, for example, create a technology/platform behind it before the actual launch.

[21BTC100ETH]

It is actually not good with the way similar tokens are just created everyday. Nothing new, just a repetition of another project. And completely nothing unique about most projects.

[Pendularin]

I think you know for a fact that MOST ICO's doesn't have any working projects yet that's why they are conducting it and I believe that's the sole purpose on why they are doing it. And that's the risk in behalf of investors wherein if the project will not work, do not deliver results or a scam that's the loss anyways I'm not saying all but most investors only want profit without taking a look in the value of it in the future.

Working products in an ICO project is helpful to contribute for the progress of the crypto that you're promoting. Without any products is a bad reputation project and mostly what i heard turned out scam or shitty coins. So I recommend that we should invest in a project that has a good and demand product for crypto.

[hachiman13]

There are some exceptions to this though. Some ICOs have actually good proposed idea that is actually feasible. Now If people would boycott those since they have no working product, we essentially killed of a potentially revolutionary project by not giving it a chance.