REVERSE ICOs?

[newb2pro]

I have been following a few ICOs in the past but am tired of the high risks.
The fact that most whitepapers are simply business plans at best and the business models are redundant most of the times, I think is where the losses happen.
I've recently participated in a bounty program of SEED Foundation and the project is about to list on a large global exchange.
I'm thinking because they are Reverse ICO (like they did not host any ICOs until now but already have a business that's running) they should be less risky.
What do you guys think??

What are your thoughts on Reverse ICOs??

[1714653452]

1714653452

[1714653452]

1714653452

[1714653452]

1714653452

[pinoyden]

To be honest its first time to hear a so called " reverse ico's "  but if they dont host or do ico's then they shouldnt be called reverse ico's  .

I think they are less riskier than compare to a real ico's because an actual ico needs to collect funds from their investors before they start their project  .

Just remeber , only invest amounts that you can afford to loose no matter how less risky the invest is  .

[Maslate]

What are your thoughts on Reverse ICOs??

There are project that are already running and yet they conduct an ICO for additional investment, it's good if you can invest with them
since they have a working product. But, you should also look on the history of the business, their reputation and profitability is very important, if you find it attractive them invest with them, it's true that it's less risky.

However, with my longer stay in crypto, I notice that there are only few businesses that are doing the same, most of the proejct in ICO
are just an idea then they will just implement that idea once they have successfully raised the funds.

[Jating]

To be honest its first time to hear a so called " reverse ico's "  but if they dont host or do ico's then they shouldnt be called reverse ico's  .

I think they are less riskier than compare to a real ico's because an actual ico needs to collect funds from their investors before they start their project  .

Just remeber , only invest amounts that you can afford to loose no matter how less risky the invest is  .

DEFINITION of Reverse ICO

Reverse initial coin offering (ICO) is a method used by existing, established real-world businesses to raise funds and get into cryptocurrency. These enterprises have existing products and/or services, and they cater to real world customers. Essentially, reverse ICO acts as an initial public offering (IPO) allowing an existing enterprise to launch cryptocurrency tokens and seek funds through crowdsourcing.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reverse-ico.asp

I think there is still a risk but I would say that it's minimal as compare to a ICO wherein it's a like a gamble to put your money with them because you don't know if the project will be successful or not.

However, I don't know if there are projects in crypto that indeed implements reverse ICO. So it's really hard to say at this point, risk is still there, so you need a lot of DYOR if what project you're going to invest just because they're going in a reverse ICO.

[Bttzed03]

DEFINITION of Reverse ICO

Reverse initial coin offering (ICO) is a method used by existing, established real-world businesses to raise funds and get into cryptocurrency. These enterprises have existing products and/or services, and they cater to real world customers. Essentially, reverse ICO acts as an initial public offering (IPO) allowing an existing enterprise to launch cryptocurrency tokens and seek funds through crowdsourcing.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reverse-ico.asp

Thanks for this. It was my first time learning about Reverse ICO also.

This certainly lessens the risks. Investors do not have to worry about the uncertain things from ICOs like whether the project can actually deliver a working product or if they can even land strategic partnerships.

[Herbert2020]

I'm thinking because they are Reverse ICO (like they did not host any ICOs until now but already have a business that's running) they should be less risky.
What do you guys think??

correct, they are less risky but not safe. in other words these ICOs are still very very risky and it doesn't matter if there is some real business behind them. if their business was so successful then they wouldn't be needing to raise funds like this through an ICO.
you should ask yourself this: what does this new token offer the world that they couldn't do it without it?!! the answer is nothing in all ICO token cases that have been created so far in the past couple of years.

[vareehavee]

So were just talking about coins that haven't made it to an exchange then??
It seems like it would work in this senerio.

If the coin has already make it to an exchange, then what?? They sell it for the same price as the exhange price??
In this second senerio if the devs sold it for less than the exchange, then who would pay more on the exchange?
So the exchange price would immediately fall for the same price or most likely even less than the ICO                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

[MI6]

I have been following a few ICOs in the past but am tired of the high risks.
The fact that most whitepapers are simply business plans at best and the business models are redundant most of the times, I think is where the losses happen.
I've recently participated in a bounty program of SEED Foundation and the project is about to list on a large global exchange.
I'm thinking because they are Reverse ICO (like they did not host any ICOs until now but already have a business that's running) they should be less risky.
What do you guys think??

What are your thoughts on Reverse ICOs??

Of course it is good. Well at least they already have their product and use ICO to develop their product more. It is better than some ICOs nowadays that actually only be plan like what you said and then make product with funds that they get from ICO.

[makishart]

I have been following a few ICOs in the past but am tired of the high risks.
The fact that most whitepapers are simply business plans at best and the business models are redundant most of the times, I think is where the losses happen.
I've recently participated in a bounty program of SEED Foundation and the project is about to list on a large global exchange.
I'm thinking because they are Reverse ICO (like they did not host any ICOs until now but already have a business that's running) they should be less risky.
What do you guys think??

What are your thoughts on Reverse ICOs??

You should clarify does it has a real business or not. You can try to take a look on the republia and it was cancelling its ico and tell us the team has already got a partnership that will cover all of the development funds. But these can't be trusted for 100%

[clonely]

I have been following a few ICOs in the past but am tired of the high risks.
The fact that most whitepapers are simply business plans at best and the business models are redundant most of the times, I think is where the losses happen.
I've recently participated in a bounty program of SEED Foundation and the project is about to list on a large global exchange.
I'm thinking because they are Reverse ICO (like they did not host any ICOs until now but already have a business that's running) they should be less risky.
What do you guys think??

What are your thoughts on Reverse ICOs??

Changing her name doesn't make its more adorable. ICOs are risk-bearing investments. So sometimes, even if the project goes well, your investment may lose value. Reverse word doesn't change anything.

[Zulfiyan]

as we know, ICO that is done after a company has a project that has already been running will very likely be successful because investors already know how the project will be in the future.

[aioc]

I have been following a few ICOs in the past but am tired of the high risks.
The fact that most whitepapers are simply business plans at best and the business models are redundant most of the times, I think is where the losses happen.
I've recently participated in a bounty program of SEED Foundation and the project is about to list on a large global exchange.
I'm thinking because they are Reverse ICO (like they did not host any ICOs until now but already have a business that's running) they should be less risky.
What do you guys think??

What are your thoughts on Reverse ICOs??

Seems a new term for me, can you care to elaborate I have not read this term before so that Seed is a reverse ICO because they are not running an ICO just confusing term and I believe there is no such thing as reverse ICO.

[rosezionjohn]

The good thing about this model is that they've already had the network or connections and most likely a ready market. That does not however guarantee that they can create an effective product.

[jagaban]

In all honesty, I believe a project will show seriousness if they already have, at least 40% of their business running. ICOs for a business that is already in existence will garner more investors than one that is yet to even have an office. So you will have less risk going into such an ICO

[Mister1k]

The good thing about this model is that they've already had the network or connections and most likely a ready market. That does not however guarantee that they can create an effective product.

You may say it clearly, community and product is the main matter to have belief on any ICO project. Most of the ICO project does not do this instead of they set the softcap and hardcap. Try to loot the fund as much they can and leave the investor as it is.
This should be check the resolve the issues while opening any ICO projects.

[Reid]

If the company is already planted then you wont have much of a problem.
This kind of ICO's mostly just want more fund to broaden their company. I dont know what their terms are, if it is products or then want to add more in other countries.

But still be careful though. If there is a token used to buy and sell, most likely it could be dragged by the down market that we are experiencing but it doesnt mean it is the end too.

[kingzpro]

I think this should be the requirement for all the icos and they should come up with their project and business and after that they should be allowed to raise funds for ongoing expenses, marketing and further development of their product and services.

[jacafbiz]

I am just reading about the ICO and I believe most people in this space also are in my shoe. One thing people need to look for now is if the project do have a prototype, have  team that have develop something in the past, the quality of the team and the most important thing, if the team is not a money grabbing, just doing ICO for the sake of ICO and the usefulness of the tokens

[Open4lies]

I don't know much about REVERSE ICO but I think if you're looking for good ICO projects to invest in so why don't you take a look at OATH PROTOCOL ICO? OATH PROTOCOL ICO has very good partner like QTUM, AION, QUARKCHAIN, NEM,.....so I think maybe OATH can be able to become the best ICO project of this year.