Why ICOs impose a minimum amount on investors?

[X - Mas]

just imagine if a person who invested in huge amount, then he or she sell his/her tokens at once the price will dump harder
so, he or she can manipulate the price right ?
i think its better if people invested with small amount rather than in huge amount as the project can reach the cap
less amount of investments is not the problem here, but huge amount on investments is the main issue

[ashmodeus]

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.

of course for counting ,
i mean if 1000 people invested with a minimum,let me say 1 usd
so that mean they will got 1000 usd
then dev,will calculate everything needed for start the project
also some ico have some planning if just rechaed soft cap, they will go to milestone 1
and if hard cap reached , they can going to milestone 5
about whales or private investor,usualy they will lock their asset until some time.
i also believe min invest create for find a good investor .
like a hodl for a long time.

[OluwaTosin10]

I think we cannot stop or assume or underestimate capabilities of icos

Nobody wants to spend 3$ gas on a 10$ purchase
So I don’t really blame ico limit prices

But I am in support of a considerable and affordable starting price

[kipoel]

What in my mind about that condition is, that could be one of the strategy for the the project to get their selling target.
So the project could continue their development when they had enough fund to do it.

[ganegani91]

I strongly agree, if the system is like that, there is no monopoly from any party, everyone also gets the same amount of tokens. that's very interesting. but sometimes companies don't appreciate the process, and they don't care whales monopolize themselves and the crowd.

[senin]

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.

Recently, a problem has arisen with ethereum, namely, with its scalability and increased commission fees in connection with this, and it turned out that the small amount of remittances that were used in some activity, games or somewhere else was to blame. I remember. That is, if we now allow small transactions when investing in ICO projects, this again can derail the ethereum price. Therefore it is better not to do this. In any case, until ethereum solves the problem of its scalability.

[yanesna3]

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.

I think that setting the minimum amount during fundraising is done in order to quickly collect the necessary amount and weed out weak investors.
Who will immediately after completing ICO begin to discard tokens.

[Script]

I think the reason why there is a minimum nominal value is that they want to get a “soft cap” as early as possible, and not a group of investors, which then affect the price of tokens.

[Mr.Spreadthehamster]

The company wants to conform to a specific model, where their power and attractiveness for investors will be taken into account.

[nik9990]

There may be problems processing payments for very small fees.

[crispyfry211]

As i see some icos right now are not getting the softcap or didn't reach it, so they implemented the minimum investment to reach the softcap, nowadays on cryptocurrency the softcap is very difficult to reach as investors lack an interest to buy on icos and they are focusing on trading.

[3x2]

Most restriction on minimum purchase is during pre sale and private sale, in ICO i dont think we have a substantial restriction, but again it varies from project to project.

[IVEXO]

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.

I think the minimum buy order is just too get serious minded investors
That will indicate their interest in the growth of the project

You can expect 10$ to be the minimum buy
Ico is not an exchange trade

[Ryananda]

As i see some icos right now are not getting the softcap or didn't reach it, so they implemented the minimum investment to reach the softcap, nowadays on cryptocurrency the softcap is very difficult to reach as investors lack an interest to buy on icos and they are focusing on trading.

Even though it was not like that, just because last year there were a lot of ico who experienced a scam that made investors reluctant to make investments in ico or buy coins at ico, and when investor confidence was running low, ico would have difficulty reaching softcaps, both small and large.

[Onanana]

The trend went into overdrive in 2018, when the price of Bitcoin  hit a peak of nearly $20,000 and Ethereum notched $1,200. ICO funding hit $6.3 billion in only the first three months of the year, as noted by Coindesk, but, fast forward six months and a new trend has emerged. Public ICOs, which allow anyone to invest, are increasingly replaced by a new approach of limited, private sales that consist only of accredited investors and close connections. Many ICOs today include no public sale component, with retail investors forced to wait until a token is listed on an exchange. This situation drove the impose the maximum number of investors allowed in participating in ICOs, that's why they impose soft cap capitalization, to compensate for the minimum number of investors on every ICOs, the most current on this trend are Poseidon, EtainPower and Bitrus.

[Huskarls]

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.

Yes I also had time to think about this. giving maximum value will be more helpful, but I think the Team will be better if it decides to give more data about investors who for example want to invest above that maximum value

[tk808]

A lot of discussions, but a significant reason for the minimum threshold is KYC verification, they cost anywhere from 2-20usd (yes i've seen 20usd KYC verification, especially if you go with a very small shitty service) per verification, depending on the source and how much automation is included.

Along with that, there are also costs for conducting TXs and a wide variety of overhead costs that rarely get disclosed. Also, the thought of 1000-10k people donating <$1 is a total nightmare for distribution and again, many of the costs associated with hosting the ICO itself.

These costs sometimes are just allocated directly from the pre-investments, sometimes they come directly out of the invested amounts. A lot of what you guys stated also plays factors as well.

One of the many things that's rarely spoken about (if ever) is ICO's disclosing allocation costs for running operations and how much working capital they have from the beginning. I'm not talking about the typical pie-chart, i'm talking real in-depth financials with forecasts, predictions and current running costs. Most competent ICO teams do have this information, and only disclose it to investors investing major sums of money into the project, but, again, rarely is public knowledge. This is a standard practice for real-world businesses and startups, but virtually unheard of in crypto. It's really up to the investor and crypto community to push for more transparency into these types of things and demand more from ICO/STO/IEO or w/e teams.

[crzybilly]

It depends on a project itself. If it is a very famous project that is about to launch its token sale, it is a great decision to make a personal cap, to allow more people to buy their coins and to avoid the creation of big whales.

[Ucy]

I don't understand the minimum amount thing too. I guess it is expensive to receive small investment from investors, if not, the whole thing doesn't make much sense. The set minimum  would not adequately decentralize the  coins if they are  concentrating them in few hands
I hope the idea behind it isn't to sideline regular/poor investors.

[Little Mouse]

Most of the ico has its minimum and maximum investment cap for getting a proper distribution. For example, in the last IEO, celer network max cap was $3k possibly and minimum cap was $20. So, I think it's a good way to being decentralised the coin distribution.