Why do most project die if they failed to meet soft cap

[batang_bitcoin]

They aren't motivated anymore when they can't meet their quota.

That's it, why would you pursue something if you already failed and you are expecting to fail because people already know what ICOs are?

[rdewilde]

I think some depends 100% on ico with nothing to contribute, i believe a developer needs to have at least  30% of fund needed before doing any ico, but most developer thinks wonder will happen .
To make matter worse, sometimes, even though the hard cap is mistakenly met, they will be giving excuses upon excuses .

They lack the potential to manage multi million dollar gigantic project .
They don't have have the potential and force needed to accelerate the project.
Even some of their white paper is poorly written and unprofessional.
Quite disheartening indeed

Softcap is the minimum amount an ICO needs to maintain and grow. If they still can not reach the softcap, they can not grow with it. And so 100% of the projects will be abandoned or die if the softcap is not achieved

[Esofdemon]

First of all, it's because of lack of money. Why they didn't get the soft cap? - because this project is not interesting to investors and they do not see it's future perspective.

[Zadicar]

even though the hard cap is mistakenly met, they will be giving excuses upon excuses .

The time when they do hit up their Hardcap then greediness will surely activated.

They lack the potential to manage multi million dollar gigantic project .

I can even tell directly if someones project deserve to be a multi million dollar but most of them do failed up on that one.

They don't have have the potential and force needed to accelerate the project.

Or simply they don't really deliver mostly on the things that they had promised on Post-ICO.

Even some of their white paper is poorly written and unprofessional.
Quite disheartening indeed

Those simply means that trash projects are hoping to get some foolish or newbie investors without minding to read up their WP.

[Omega Weapon]

I think some depends 100% on ico with nothing to contribute, i believe a developer needs to have at least  30% of fund needed before doing any ico, but most developer thinks wonder will happen .
To make matter worse, sometimes, even though the hard cap is mistakenly met, they will be giving excuses upon excuses .

They lack the potential to manage multi million dollar gigantic project .
They don't have have the potential and force needed to accelerate the project.
Even some of their white paper is poorly written and unprofessional.
Quite disheartening indeed

Because they are after the money, if they truly believed in the project they were developing they will not need any money at all, just look at satoshi he is one of the richest people alive and it is possible he could take the position as the richest person in the world and yet he did not asked for money, he just built bitcoin and mined coins to support the network.

[cuenzy]

I think some depends 100% on ico with nothing to contribute, i believe a developer needs to have at least  30% of fund needed before doing any ico, but most developer thinks wonder will happen .
To make matter worse, sometimes, even though the hard cap is mistakenly met, they will be giving excuses upon excuses .

They lack the potential to manage multi million dollar gigantic project .
They don't have have the potential and force needed to accelerate the project.
Even some of their white paper is poorly written and unprofessional.
Quite disheartening indeed

This is the reason why there are also projects out there that want to regulate this kind of problems. They will be a platform for ICOs that will be beneficial for investors as well. Some features like voting for fund disbursement so it's escrowed and if the project failed the invested will be returned to the contributors.

[dumplingsandsushi]

Yes, it is amazing how some of these projects think they had a chance to make it big.

If ICOs went through traditional funding (directly market to a VC, angel investor or something like that), then 90% of them would never even get off the ground.
First off, what company could ever get funding without even a product demonstration?
Yet we have so many ICOs that only have a whitepaper and not even an MVP.

Also, greediness will get you shut out so fast in the normal world
If a tiny startup with no reputable devs and no product asks for 20million in funding, people would laugh and think it's a joke.
But there are so many asking for so much.
Even hardcaps of 10million are high.

All of this is totally unstustainable.  Which, actually, is what's going on, it can't be sustained so the ICO market is crashing now.

[owlman]

Everyone sees how much money was in the market of ICO projects, so most developers wanted to tear off their piece, having only the idea of ​​a project available and hoped only to get easy money, instead of bringing some benefit to society with their technology.

[Mishgan27]

Yes there is. But I also saw projects where the company already has half the amount for the project. Or where no funds are raised at all. Someone has a finished product. But such projects are few. Because everyone wants to minimize their personal expenses.

[ije07]

there are some ico that are handled by beginners, like making something to earn money but after that they leave without thinking of investors and bounty hunters, because people like that ico seem scary and the impact is that investors are reluctant to invest which makes more and ico fail and the losses are certainly It's just felt by bounty hunters like me because I didn't receive results for my work
but this time not, because I followed the right project

[DariaBriklaiz]

I noticed that trusted ICOs are ready to launch platform without raising hard cap. Usually developers calculate minimum summ for development.

[ethereumhunter]

I think some depends 100% on ico with nothing to contribute, i believe a developer needs to have at least  30% of fund needed before doing any ico, but most developer thinks wonder will happen .
To make matter worse, sometimes, even though the hard cap is mistakenly met, they will be giving excuses upon excuses .

They lack the potential to manage multi million dollar gigantic project .
They don't have have the potential and force needed to accelerate the project.
Even some of their white paper is poorly written and unprofessional.
Quite disheartening indeed

Because they cannot reach the minimal investment money for their project, so they decide to cancel the project or delay the project, and it will continue if the market is waking up. But before they continue the project, maybe they will fix something that is not working properly so in the future, when they start their project, it will reach good results. Besides that, if they cancel the project, I think they can analyze the progress of their project so they can know how good enough their project to give something to the people.

[kier010]

soft cap is a minimum requirements for a project to start. if it did not reach soft cap then the ICO have no enough funds so it can be considered failure. a project should be good and also with good team.

[santouao]

If a project reach softcap usually the project can work it well, unless the developers arent serious enough to launch their project. If I were you pick a good project with working product not those ICOs that doesnt have a working product when launching an ICO. Why? You are not sure of they will really pursue the project once they have enough fund. Having 1million USD as softcap is big already to develop some product. Also, if they are good that's enough fund to list on some decent exchange. That's why I confuse with some project why they dont get listed on an exxhange right away hence they have funds for payment. Sound's fishy right? But probably there are hidden agenda with that.

[malading]

If the startup funds cannot be raised, then how successful the project is. No money can be achieved without money. This is an industry that requires the integration of money and technology.

[slaman29]

They aren't motivated anymore when they can't meet their quota.

That's it, why would you pursue something if you already failed and you are expecting to fail because people already know what ICOs are?

Because Bitcoin never needed an ICO to launch? Because so many good projects are out there, and none of them needed a single cent to develop something good and useful? Because they all believed in the concept of open source and contribution to society?

ICO projects mostly, for me, are incredibly useless. They pretend to develop something but actually just want the money.

Only ICOs for expansion are something I can believe in. A working product that needs money to expand.

[Krassows]

Yes, of course the project will get stuck if it is not fulfilled for the soft cup, and the process will be stopped, if the soft cup is not fulfilled the project will float, so this is where the team's role and intense promotion are very important in the success of a project

[jpaul]

If they do not meet the soft cap for the coins then that means that the coin is not going to be able to grow, the money that they raise from doing the ico is the money that they use to invest in the things that they can use to make sure that the coin is sustainable, things like the hardware needed to make sure that the coin runs smoothly is bought with that money

[Cryptodiscuss]

Its not hard to fake that they have reached soft cap, they just send tokens to their shillers and mark that on their website like they were sold. So even reaching soft cap doesn't mean that project is success.

[xOdiumNostrumx]

Well the answer is pretty self evident. Most or at least a lot of the ICOs are simply a money grab, where the team lacks the actual passion to go forward with the development of the project. Couple of years ago teams were able to create great products with half a million of dollars, now they are complaining when they are unable to reach their 5 million soft cap. Give me a break.