ALL Initial Coin Offerings are Trash

[thedarksun]

Whether the ICO is trash or not depends on its creators, ideas and implementation. Nobody stops anyone to try realize their ideas, just as no one stops anyone to invest in them.
It is true that there are a lot of worthless ICOs, but that does not mean that they are all hopeless. There are some very interesting projects, one of them is MyTVchain - see my signature.

[Red_Evil]

not all ICOs are rubbish, because there are many proven ICO projects that are now running according to the roadmap and indeed many ICO projects are just boasting, until now the ICO project that can be trusted is the market exchange project even though many have been realized, it still runs smoothly and proven.

[accounting 181293]

not all, there are some who have high quality. this is only because the market is down so it looks like ico is not profitable.

it is true that almost 95% of projects currently are garbage, but at least there are still good projects.

[Ranly123]

There's a lot of posts in this section "ICOs will come back", "Some ICOs are scams", "Should I do ICOs". These all contain the implication that Initial Coin Offerings are fine and dandy.

What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?

The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?

The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.

It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.

Resources:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams

I may believe in your claim but I guess ICO's are essential in making the market alive. ICO give chances to investors to have their shares on their platform. They need millions to run their project that's why they are crowdfunding to forsee where their project will go to whether or not the public will patronize their product.

[Freescan]

If all of ico do you think junk means the bounty hunter in your opinion is garbage. because we know that bounty hunters rely heavily on ico, although not all of them work well ... but this is the crypto world so believe that not all ico are rubbish and every bounty hunter certainly has his own way before following ico.

[MOProgress]

Personally I disagree with this topic, I wouldn't say all  initial coin offering are trash, because here are still reputable projects in the midst of the bad ones.

[andrejka]

There's a lot of posts in this section "ICOs will come back", "Some ICOs are scams", "Should I do ICOs". These all contain the implication that Initial Coin Offerings are fine and dandy.

What type of information do you need to know that Initial Coin Offerings are trash the majority of the time? 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams. To put that into respective, that's 4 out of every 5. The odds are terrible. Going by the rules of probability, you're going to be apart of the four of five. Why wouldn't you be?

The ideas I've seen with Initial Coin Offerings are just as bad. Why do these companies need $80 million in the first place? Let's be realistic, most things don't need to be on the blockchain. Satoshi didn't need to do an Initial Coin Offering to make Bitcoin into a bustling success. He started off putting in his own money. What do ICOs actually have to bring to the table?

The people that are making these threads with a positive implication are probably apart of the scams, or they're risking their money with the odds stacked entirely against them.

It's possible to have original ideas offered for free. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin. Some people are simply blinded by their greed and short-term to try speculate on the worthless. No wonder bubbles are so rampant within this ecosystem.

Resources:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-study-says-80-percent-of-icos-conducted-in-2017-were-scams

The point is that there was no regulation in this sphere. But now more and more countries are applying regulation for ICOs and this surely will lead to decline in scam projects. Besides STOs are coming to the stage, they would be controlled by SEC and have minimum risk to invest in. Soon this sphere will get very investment-attractive again, just a little bit patience...

[Leah38]

There's a lot of scam ICOs that's why even the good ones are affected. People are loosing trust because of being scammed and are afraid to loose more money. Not all are trash. They are also affected by the drop of the market. Some ICOs didn't reached even soft cap,  but that doesn't prove its scam. Hopefully bitcoin value will recover.

[tk808]

The problem is deeper than just being scams, because scams are often double entendres. Scams come in all shapes and sizes, most think of scam as providing nothing in return for your investment, IE devs running away. But, this is not necessarily true in all cases. Most coins that we see today, belong on kickstarter or some other crowdfunding-based website (or require no funding at all in some cases), not having to do with cryptocurrency in any shape or form. Project that we see are start-ups looking to gain some sort of investment, without truly fully understanding what crypto is, and how this space functions.

MVP's often are developed to serve only 1 function for a crypto. Why does this crypto need to exist if it's only function is for this platform alone (often as a payment processor to purchase X good) and for trading/investing in? Essentially, this is where the perception of security tokens arise from. Because, if the token/crypto has no real function outside of a specific small niche job, then there truly was never no purpose for it to begin with. What i'm trying to say is that again, projects only enter ICOs to secure funding for their project, and to conduct an ICO you need a cryptocurrency. Well, guess what, it's quite easy to incorporate or utilize an ERC-20 or any other token, into ANY business or project, fulfilling the definition of ICO.

Thus, what most view ICOs as is investment vehicles into businesses, hoping to return a profit on a non-equity based security. This is the problem that crypto ultimately faces today, because investments into ICOs is so (or was) prevalent, and the majority do not understand the difference or what they've even invested in, regulations are going to police the entire industry (to whatever extent they can), in order to project the oblivious and clueless investor.

All this leads up to what the definition and perception of ICO is currently. There are still coins out there worthy of an investment, because they are building doorways with expandable blockchains, enhancing on technology, fundamentally furthering progress of the crypto-space. But, the majority of investors will never be able to dictate or even find such investments, and by the time they hit the markets, they are perceived as every other shitcoin/scamcoin. The only thing that truly matters for the average person in this space, is how well the coin functions on the markets post-ico, essentially the demand (or perception of).

[wendiar19]

only a few ICO can be categorized like that, but there are still ico that can be successful and can now become famous and increasingly popular, for example binance, binance exchange places are also created from ICO and can be a place of exchange that has the highest volume every day.

so, not all ICO are trash.

[marcitosi]

It is because of such disappointing statistics that I do not recommend that you invest your money in startups on the cryptocurrency market.

[Bitlocker_A]

Yes you are right. ICO full garbage. They are simply aimed at luring money and quick earnings of the owners. As we see today, there are many ICO`s, they all cloud the cloudy future, but all this is a lie in most cases.

[moschinot]

I hope that the situation will change in the future because now I don’t see any reason to invest in the cryptocurrency market precisely because of fraudulent projects.

[allmight_]

People invest in the project, but in fact they do not get the shares of the project, and get useless tokens. I think the Ico is inferior to Sto for this reason.

[EL-NIDO]

Definitely not all Initial Coin Offerings are trash. There are still some new projects with good and innovative ideas. But there were also scam projects and others that were not worth to invest.

[doycku]

Definitely not all Initial Coin Offerings are trash. There are still some new projects with good and innovative ideas. But there were also scam projects and others that were not worth to invest.

In any case, most coins in the cryptocurrency market are rubbish. In general, I wonder how they could attract investors, but definitely the poor state of the cryptocurrency market will be a correction among all such projects.

[Cryptrx]

Sadly over 90% of ICOs have ended in the team abandoning the project, there's no finished product. They are mostly interested in enriching themselves from the sweat of others. If 50% of ICOs had gone ahead to accomplish 50% in their roadmap, crypto market won't be where it is today.

[Avirunes]

People invest in the project, but in fact they do not get the shares of the project, and get useless tokens. I think the Ico is inferior to Sto for this reason.

That's another type of shares. It's just the same thing but different name and the form of the reward correctly. All ico's are becoming trash because they don't have anything new to offer to the market.

Why would a person invest in something which has a idea similar to a project already there or a foolish idea? On the other hand there are many scammers coming up with ICO stuff to hide their plans to scam.

[Naitik]

Not every ICO is trash. Looks at the hot ICO of 2018-2019
Ankr
Aergo
Credit protocol
Oath PRotocol
These are great projects, and have the potential to grow but they are counting on their product development. If they derive the right product then no one has to be worried about returns.

[whatthesith]

ICOs are trash, but STOs are diffrent! This year STOs will replace classic ICOs because STOs may attract more investors.
STOs are more regulated and their future is more secure.