Why ICOs impose a minimum amount on investors?

[ahmadakbari]

I am not talking about the private sales and pre-sales. I am talking about the main sales.
Don't you think ICOs should allow people to invest any amount of money they want? It will cause the tokens to be distributed among more people.
Assume that 1000 people are participating in an ICO and each of them is investing only 1 dollar. Don't you think they are more helpful than a person who is investing 1000 dollar?
Better to consider a maximum amount instead of a minimum and do not let the whales manipulate the price.

[BTCgrinders.com]

It could be technical issues, if they allow really same sales, it could clog up the transactions on the ETH network (or other network if they ICO on some other smart-contract platform) and slow down their system.

It does seem that it would be better to have things be more distributed, hence, why Bitcoin has such a higher price than all altcoins. Bitcoin is more distributed, there is gamblers who have it, drug dealers, politicians, libertarians, crazy woods people, gun holders, people in every country in the world. It is extremely distributed, and continuing to be even more so because the ability to mine is open to everyone. Anyone can get in the mining game and fabricate chips to attempt to do proof-of-work.

This is why Bitcoin is a phenomenon, and ICOs have been a flash-in-the-pan, using gimmicky techniques and silly restrictions like you mention. They don't want to help people. They want to help themselves, the people ICOing.

[Perfect35]

I have seen a lot of ICOs, where fixed and minimum amounts are asked for. For instance, an ICO might ask for $100 as the minimum amount anyone can invest and there are some that sometimes ask for huge amount of money. This can result into investors not wanting to invest into the project, because they are being care of not investing what they cannot afford to loose.

[Checkoi]

I think that because in this way they screen out potentially weak investors who don’t donate anything to the project

[batang_bitcoin]

They want to assure that they will reach even the soft cap.

They can't just allow any person to invest with any amount. That's like an hybrid type of distribution, they have a model which they follow so they impose a minimum amount of investment.

[mightwalker]

I see most ICOs limit the amount that investors can invest in. It's necessary for the project who don't want a single investor to hold too many coins.

[Aleh777]

This is crowd sourcing and they should not put a minimum on how much an investor should invest in a project. Putting a minimum is like a discrimination to people who want to invest but have only small amount of money on hand.

[makadaka]

I do not support this decision as I think that people should be able to invest any amount

[Endikadija]

I am not talking about the private sales and pre-sales. I am talking about the main sales.
Don't you think ICOs should allow people to invest any amount of money they want? It will cause the tokens to be distributed among more people.
Assume that 1000 people are participating in an ICO and each of them is investing only 1 dollar. Don't you think they are more helpful than a person who is investing 1000 dollar?
Better to consider a maximum amount instead of a minimum and do not let the whales manipulate the price.

What will happen if these stakes will be held by a single or a few people only? there will be a lot of manipulation in the market because it has distributed in a few token holders only. A few holders can manipulate the price of coin.

[carrigan]

In my opinion, the reason why there is a minimum nominal is that they have had the numbers of the investors that they will gain. In my opinion, so far, the minimum number to invest in an ICO is also small so we can make it as the consideration. It also depends on how they can distribute the token or coin to the investors if they only buy very small coins.

[kerzhake]

this is a very competent decision, because in this way they raise the amount that they can collect from investors and the project will develop faster

[bananaunana]

I am not talking about the private sales and pre-sales. I am talking about the main sales.

Maybe it's to avoid very small transations and this will lead to more traffic or issues regarding to all users. And more questions to clear. Means more expenses. But it's only my guess.

Don't you think ICOs should allow people to invest any amount of money they want? It will cause the tokens to be distributed among more people.

I'm a friend of low entry barriers. Maybe 50$ should be enough. In many countries 50$ can be very much money.

Assume that 1000 people are participating in an ICO and each of them is investing only 1 dollar. Don't you think they are more helpful than a person who is investing 1000 dollar?

As said above, 1000 investors will cause more question and possible issue than one investor.

Better to consider a maximum amount instead of a minimum and do not let the whales manipulate the price.

To be fair, I agree here, I don't like projects where many rich people hold most tokens or coins, like Ripple. Such projects are not good ones. 

[khoapham89]

Better to consider a maximum amount instead of a minimum and do not let the whales manipulate the price.

In my opinion, imposing a minimum amount is needed. What do you think if someone wants to break your ICO with thousands of transactions but only 1 token purchased for each transaction? However, the minimum have to be appropriate. Too high requirement is also bad to attract small investors.

On the other hand, they want the real investors to get involved in their project. It will be better while they are deloying project.

[Clavulanic]

because they want to get the soft cap as early as possible not a bunch of investors that only cause a traffic in the system, it is also a prerequisite attracting other investors to invest in the 2nd stage.

[owlman]

Project developers themselves have the right to set their own rules and, accordingly, the minimum and maximum amounts of investments — as long as no one controls the market for ICO projects. Perhaps after this long decline in the market, the situation will change and the rules when investing in ICO projects will change.

[mirgo1791]

yes the scheme on works with ico manage on projects deliverance might helps as gathering collection of funds on supports as managing future chance on projects with the service deliverance,
as developer keep on extending entrance on authorizing use of possession as the works on objectives to manage with customs on strategic dominance on personal preference.

[z21770179]

I think there are two issues when they come up with a minimum amount of money to invest. A minimum is what they want to know if the investor really wants to invest in their project. Second is the transaction fee is not low, so if the $ 1 investment is really too wasteful of fees

[Alohadance]

You are absolutely right. It's better to find 1 investor and cooperate with hime rather than with a crowd. But if the project can't take enough investments from private sales, they make public sales.

[ganegani91]

in essence, all ICOs will not reject whales, because with the investment they provide, ICO will be very easy to reach the softcap target, not much can be done, whales always have a way to play

[Checkoi]

I believe that this is a fraud because absolutely all people should be able to invest