We should stop promoting ICOs who ask huge money for their soft/hardcap!

[nwosuchristabe2]

In my opinion, most of the projects that have inflated softcap which are not achieved are scam projects. They are only giving themselves out, because the investors are aware of the market and know that some amounts are barely achieved.

[5ensei]

Even if you start a non-crypto business you do not need to have millions of dollars to make it a success. If anyone watches 'dragons den' about people asking investors for money, few will request anything over a 100,000k. Softcaps in ICOs are too high and should be lowered

[Little Mouse]

A project needs a lot of money to be established and survive. From that circumstance, I wouldn't consider soft/hard cap is a reason to stop promoting. I think we should consider the project idea and team before thinking of promoting a project.

Even if you start a non-crypto business you do not need to have millions of dollars to make it a success. If anyone watches 'dragons den' about people asking investors for money, few will request anything over a 100,000k. Softcaps in ICOs are too high and should be lowered

No, there is another problem other than I mentioned. Back in the days, ICO were mostly done by ETH. Imagine how much value they have lost at the end. Now, how will they back up it? Is there a way?

[Findingnemo]

Hello Everyone,
Recently I have analyzed that most of the big raised ICOs are valueless or nothing but a pump dump token! No Major updates but they asked huge money to run their technology/project smoothly! Look at the HDAC, Bankex, Pumapay, Online, Cryptosolartech and so on ICOs! They gathered huge money from the sale but then what happened? Their developments mean just listing on some exchanges that's it! Many low cap ICO projects are doing far better than those highly earned ICO projects. Look at the countinghouse ICO, how happy their investors are!

So, My Opinion is, we should stop promoting those ICOs who asked more than 10-20 Million USD as a soft cap goal! what do you think?

Just stop promoting the ICOs which are the great risk for crypto currency investors right now since people lost millions of dollars by investing on those projects so better avoid all the projects and only support the current developing projects to make cryptos as better.

[kanmo]

Hello Everyone,
Recently I have analyzed that most of the big raised ICOs are valueless or nothing but a pump dump token! No Major updates but they asked huge money to run their technology/project smoothly! Look at the HDAC, Bankex, Pumapay, Online, Cryptosolartech and so on ICOs! They gathered huge money from the sale but then what happened? Their developments mean just listing on some exchanges that's it! Many low cap ICO projects are doing far better than those highly earned ICO projects. Look at the countinghouse ICO, how happy their investors are!

So, My Opinion is, we should stop promoting those ICOs who asked more than 10-20 Million USD as a soft cap goal! what do you think?

The simple truth is that capitalization of any ICO does not have anything to do with the success or failure of an ICO. The success of a project depend largely on the idea and the team behind such idea. Therefore any project be it low or high cap can succeed or fail.

[BlueStackz]

You could be right about this, but it also depends on the kind of product the project is presenting to the public, we have some products that really require huge capital for it to succeed because they might end up getting stock along the way if the capital is not enough to complete it.

Let’s take a look at power project or real estate project, such amount of money is even very small compared to what it takes to bring these project samples to completion but my question is, when such project comes out with such cap, do we really study the product they are bringing out to see if it will really be in demand in the long run ? Many projects have the chances of failing completely if they don’t do their feasibility studies very well to be sure that such product will be of high demands.

[Ucy]

I totally agree with you on this one. Funding should be based on merit. There should be a way to determine if they deserve the huge amount they ask for. A group made of developers should be doing the investigating and getting rewarded. But we currently have no such group unfortunately.

[bitstalker]

For projects like them, it is indeed very unfortunate because it cannot bring changes with large funds, but it is not guaranteed that projects with small funds will succeed because some projects from the bounty campaign that I saw they did a lot of strange things, for example, going through listing in exchange if the bearmarket has been lost or is waiting for the regulation from sec which turns out they are not correct "registering and the worse is changing the reward bounty as they wish but does not guarantee the price of the token is not affected by dump, in my opinion if I follow a project ico is basically just fortune

[HappyCaptain]

the softcap or minimum funding goal will depend on their business model and requirements on building the platform though i agree that a new project should not ask too much funds since they are not well-known on this space.

[spike420211]

My experience has shown me that the more a project has a request for funds raised, the lower the chance that they will collect something at all. You can also add that if the project says that it has collected more than 30 million dollars and at the same time he holds a bounty company, most often this project is a scam.

[marcous]

Not all ICOs are bad but in fact, almost all of them only use a pump and dump when they are listed in the market. unless they are stable coins that can indeed keep their prices stable in the market. and usually they have a softcap target that is not too high, the concept is when the development team wants the price to remain stable they must be able to control that the coin is not held by one person who can randomize price on the market.

[MUG1WARA]

softcap with large numbers but if team is very slow then project will not develop
softcap is little but team uses funds well so the project will certainly develop quickly and market price will increase
so in my opinion, no matter softcap set by project even though in large numbers the main points are seeing team behind the project

[beerlover]

I thought of their initial intention to build a project, whether they are serious or not to develop their project?
 Logically, if they are serious about doing that, they must have initial capital. In my opinion, investors are only capital enhancers, not full capital providers for the project. Even though they only achieved softcaps, I think they can still develop the project, because their own team that decides capital is minimal (softcap)

Sometimes, it is our impatience that makes us judge them so fast, and conclude on them that they are shitcoins just because they look slow in executing their project.

When we talk about the project, what exactly is the definition of the project we are talking about, many of us think it has to do with computer forgetting that some of them requires physical human efforts, imagine it is a project that requires having a building, staffing, putting of some technical instruments in place to execute the project, do we really think this can be done less than 6 months?

Would it not be right to even give some of these projects at least one year plus to put some things in place after the ICO, some of us are so used to concluding immediately a project finishes ICO and we want them to enter exchange and once they rush into an exchange without putting necessary things in place, they end up failing.

[pieppiep]

softcap with large numbers but if team is very slow then project will not develop
softcap is little but team uses funds well so the project will certainly develop quickly and market price will increase
so in my opinion, no matter softcap set by project even though in large numbers the main points are seeing team behind the project

but your statement cannot guarantee the number of ICOs that failed, although the ico project has a strong and highly committed team and has achieved the softcap it will never guarantee you to be able to benefit because they are human so they will be easily tempted by the funds already collected and they will never care about the token or its development again.

[bitc0000]

Hello Everyone,
Recently I have analyzed that most of the big raised ICOs are valueless or nothing but a pump dump token! No Major updates but they asked huge money to run their technology/project smoothly! Look at the HDAC, Bankex, Pumapay, Online, Cryptosolartech and so on ICOs! They gathered huge money from the sale but then what happened? Their developments mean just listing on some exchanges that's it! Many low cap ICO projects are doing far better than those highly earned ICO projects. Look at the countinghouse ICO, how happy their investors are!

So, My Opinion is, we should stop promoting those ICOs who asked more than 10-20 Million USD as a soft cap goal! what do you think?

On a larger scale, most projects don't really require funding in excess of 20million usd but some projects are huge such as difinity and eos. The most important thing is integrity of team not the seed fund requested

[e@symode]

Very good solution. The most interesting thing is that people write for some reason different goals. Why do they do it, if a soft cap is achieved, then why do we need to collect more? I never understood that.

[Tduty]

Very good solution. The most interesting thing is that people write for some reason different goals. Why do they do it, if a soft cap is achieved, then why do we need to collect more? I never understood that.

Because most of them are greedy. For example, after gaining a good amount of money URUNIT again extended their sale 2 months more! So, people got frustrated with that project even partners too. So, when they distributed tokens to all partners and investors, people started dumping the coin significantly, and then URUNIT is a dead project right now!

[hellyah070]

Hello Everyone,
Recently I have analyzed that most of the big raised ICOs are valueless or nothing but a pump dump token! No Major updates but they asked huge money to run their technology/project smoothly! Look at the HDAC, Bankex, Pumapay, Online, Cryptosolartech and so on ICOs! They gathered huge money from the sale but then what happened? Their developments mean just listing on some exchanges that's it! Many low cap ICO projects are doing far better than those highly earned ICO projects. Look at the countinghouse ICO, how happy their investors are!

So, My Opinion is, we should stop promoting those ICOs who asked more than 10-20 Million USD as a soft cap goal! what do you think?

Why would be? I think it depends on the project, if they have a working product, then definitely they should have a huge softcap to consider. Their project will not going to improve if they have very few budget, and depends on the quality of the project if we will going to support them.

[mrdeposit]

Very good solution. The most interesting thing is that people write for some reason different goals. Why do they do it, if a soft cap is achieved, then why do we need to collect more? I never understood that.

Greed is everywhere. There have been many projects extending the sale by thinking that there will be better prices recently, but the main reason is greed. But, the fall in November facilitated the situation.lol

[Coin-Desk]

Yes, I think so too. All of us should stop the ICO campaign, who wants huge money for their software and hardcaps. In the present era, we understand that ICO means scam. Because now most of the ICO scam. Most ICOs cannot be successful. It is a very difficult thing to do find the real ICO. So we have to see that we should stay away from all the ICOs wanting huge money for their software and hardcaps. Because these ICO will do scam.

Thank you