ICOs should only create Tokens with Working Products or Services

[solkinsolali]

Considering the investors... Yes it will be good to create ICO'S with working products. But come to think of it, do all businesses actually deals on products?....I'm just thinking!

I will put it to you firmly that any business without a product or service is not a legal business and I standto defend it anywhere. If you know of any 'legal' business without a product or service, kindly let us know. So therefore, the ICOs must have a good product or service to cater for.

[1714857254]

1714857254

[1714857254]

1714857254

[1714857254]

1714857254

[1714857254]

1714857254

[1714857254]

1714857254

[Adecrypt83]

The industry is still very young and as time goes on, we will surely reach the stage where most project will have a working product in  which they will only be raising money for further development. Very soon, this will be the standard of the industry.

[Rostock]

There are really a lot of such tokens, and there are also a lot of monotonous projects. Some are copying others, where the project previously was also copied.

[anisoptera]

I completely agree, ICOs without the product have zero value and there is no way how to get value later. This is one of the signs that the project is a scam, just my opinion.

[frausoft]

I fully agree with the topic starter. Over the past year, many unnecessary tokens have appeared. And everyone says that they are doing a brilliant project. Although in fact most people have nothing but a roadmap and whitepaper.

[kobita333]

that is why most of the coins will not be able to survive in the upcoming year. It will be replaced by some real useable cryptocurrencies. In my opinion, people even should not invest those kinda coins because there is a great chance of losing your whole investment.

[conanmori]

Product is the second thing im looking when I see an interesting project. A project with MVP that have a unique idea or already finish is one of the investors looking.

I don't know why people investing in ICO who doesn't even have product to begin with those kind of project mostly survive just a few years if they don't do some direct support with the company project.

[Ferki]

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.

Ok,how about ICOOWP? Initial Coin Offering of Working Products.Oh wait,there are IPO´s already.But i think i know what you want to say.We all hate scam ICO´s

[kleeck]

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.

Actually this is the reason why market is strugling right now. We have too many projects with no product or infinite delays or similar problems. People started to see this as a big scam and tend to avoid it.

[bovesgiraffe]

ye, it's mostly true, but there are some cases when without a product an ico still has a lot of potential

[slightmoon]

Really product or service the most important thing. Even after ICO ends also it's a matter how well product going in the market or how people like the service. Many time ICO gets the good investment with a working product but after that product isn't able to get strong user-base and coin become just shitcoin.

[xWolfx]

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.

Of course! - I personally like to support ICOs somehow for the projects behind them mostly. Just like any business they should be made to be useful for society like you said. That way a lot more confidence will be drawn towards the Cryptocurrency world, especially if we find a way to minimize the number of scammers out there. How? Maybe leaving easy to find resources for people to see where to look at ICOs that are trusted.

Some people just want a quick profit and don't care about bringing something of value, but both can be done without too much problem and with possibly a lot more benefit.

[apalenkoff]

I fully agree with the topic starter. Over the past year, many unnecessary tokens have appeared. And everyone says that they are doing a brilliant project. Although in fact most people have nothing but a roadmap and whitepaper.

There are situations when a project team has a good idea and a big experience in its area but there are no resources for a development of at least a prototype. Or it can be that an idea requires a too big seed capital. ICO definitely, is the fastest way for reaching new achievements and tops of success. But risks are inevitable here.

[Ranly123]

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.

It's not the token that has a working product but the project itself. Tokens are just payments from ICO for their products. I think you mean that ICO should make a working product and services to have their tokens valuable.

[gerjiss]

90 percent of the projects that can be seen are exactly like this, and this does not include scams. The funny thing is when there's a hard cap of $ 20 million. The project successfully collects this money, and then the tokens appear on the exchange at a price of 10 times less.

[neuronchain]

True. An ICO that has already a real-world implementation will last long. One should always consider checking if an ICO has a viable product.

[walterwhite28]

True. An ICO that has already a real-world implementation will last long. One should always consider checking if an ICO has a viable product.

Most ICOs doesn't have that though. They promise big but they can't show anything to support what they're claiming that's why I'm being careful on ICOs I'm choosing.

[ryanfromrethink]

And what shoudl we do with the all existing projects? Even single unified database does not exists, how can you control a thing without it?

[jayendo]

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.

We all have similar point of view of the situation, but history shows that governments are only organizations that abble to control something, so let's wait for their turn.

[MR_Klip]

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.

cryptocurrencies were created to provide all the people with alternative way, which is different to way that is proposed by government. we do not need regulation