Should ICO have Advisors compulsorily?

[TIDOVEE]

ICO having advisor should not be a bad idea, although may not be too compulsory. The position of the advisor will be more beneficial to the investors and participants if I'm right, I feel they can always help as Intercessor within our transactions. And help to regulate and reduce cheat.

[forexandcryptoauditor]

Almost all ico projects now a days appoints advisors.previouly ICO projects have ignored the role of advisors but as it gave the experience of handling ICOs and the resulting impact to fund raising, it is now become essential to have advisors.
Initially advisors we're just for purpose of project marketing but due to competition, their role and responsibilities have been changed.
One of the most important factor of any ico is it's advisors. So very carefully the selection should be made.
I have seen a project which has been launched by team of advisors:)
The reputation of ico can be determined by experience and level of advisors associated with the project.

[Christinebeauty]

Having an advisory board for a project is a good idea. It helps the team to acquire new ideas and strategies to develop the project successfully.

[CryptoCoinArbitrage]

We cannot believe projects based only on the names of  the advisers but  they still could mean a lot for the project. Their reputation could play an important role, as it is high probability that they would not like  their name to be connected to a scam project. So, advisers are only one criteria to be checked, but an important one.

[8rch7]

Yups, I think advisor is an important part of ICO. some investors consider a number of things in investing in the ICO, one of them is by looking at the reputation and track record of the adviser. In general, investors will invest in ICO with advisers who have a reputation and a good track record. thus a good reputation from advisors will increase the level of investor confidence in the ICO.

[LogitechMouse]

If you notice, those ICO's who have popular advisers tend to sell their tokens faster compare to those ICO's who doesn't have any popular people in their team so Advisers is a big role in marketing the token.

There are some ICO's who became successful in their token sale because of the popular adviser but after that, as all the altcoin experienced their price also plummeted. Advisers only help on marketing the coin but they can't change its price as many will dump their coins when it is listed on an exchange.

[LogitechMouse]

If you notice, those ICO's who have popular advisers tend to sell their tokens faster compare to those ICO's who doesn't have any popular people in their team so Advisers is a big role in marketing the token.

There are some ICO's who became successful in their token sale because of the popular adviser but after that, as all the altcoin experienced their price also plummeted. Advisers only help on marketing the coin but they can't change its price as many will dump their coins when it is listed on an exchange.

[DAVETUN]

Advisors are indirectly a marketing tools, apart from the fact that they can guide and  tutor the ICO developer to the right path, also more investors tend to adopt ICO  when it is discover they have advisors with good track record and solid exprience relative to the project, Advisors should be compulsory.

[Supercrypt]

Nah, most of  ICOs have advisors for name sake and I rarely see them doing anything. If advisors were any good then most of ICOs won't be getting failed.

The success of an ICO is not about the team and advisors but their project product. The advisor might have a deeper knowledge on what will not be of benefit to the community, and no matter how hard they make try to make it work, it is the product does not have the power to attract the interest of end users; the project will make no meaning in the long run and fail.

Are you saying most projects that has failed didn’t have good advisors, you see, it is not every ides one has that must be turned into a project immediately, the only problem I see with these ICO is that they did not do their market research very well before coming up with such project.

[pinoycash]

Advisors are indirectly a marketing tools, apart from the fact that they can guide and  tutor the ICO developer to the right path, also more investors tend to adopt ICO  when it is discover they have advisors with good track record and solid exprience relative to the project, Advisors should be compulsory.

More like a marketing picture, These advisor hardly advise at all they get paid for using their picture as part of advisory team.

Also hardly any of them interact within the investors community.

[Fammosh82]

A strong team to back your ICO project is rudimentary to its success. Without a credible team, your project will fail to attract serious investors and plunge in the crowded pool of failed ICOs. Though there are a plenty of reasons for failure, but no one can deny the lack of a strong team behind failed ICOs.

[lionheart78]

A strong team to back your ICO project is rudimentary to its success. Without a credible team, your project will fail to attract serious investors and plunge in the crowded pool of failed ICOs. Though there are a plenty of reasons for failure, but no one can deny the lack of a strong team behind failed ICOs.

I agree, that is why to further strengthen the team, they need to have these advisors that is expert on their fields.  Even with a strong team but with no one to guide or advice them, they will take more time to accomplish the goal and even have gaps and loop hole in their activities.  Remember people might be skilled on technical staff but definitely they will be lacking when it comes to  other field expertise.

Also hardly any of them interact within the investors community.

Advisors are not intended to interact with community.  They are in there to guide the team to fully maximize the resources.

[fudster]

Reason why they wanna see advisors is for them to see if your team has connection to popular individuals and makes you project a good investment in a way. Investors will come right in when they see Tim Draper or Elon Musk as part of your advisor because that would mean these advisor vouch for the team's success.

[jumiapaul]

It's not compulsory for ICO's to have advisors, but it's a good marketing strategy to have a reputable individual as an advisor. The individual may not necessarily be giving any advice, but he's reputation in the industry could send a positive signal to the investing public.

[spadormie]

Having somebody that has a personality that is upped by many people, will actually boost the ICO its advising. For example, having Roger Ver as your advisor, Roger Ver is a known personality in cryptocurrency. So, if your ICO is been backed by him, you have a high percentage in  getting your ICO more successful.

[disconnectme]

Nope, the whole Advisors thing is a bad thing for the space, most of these so called Advisors bring little to nothing to the project, there was a survey carried out on this topic and most of these Advisors said they know little to nothing about the project they were advising which is a blow to the whole ecosystem. They collect free tokens and dump on people

[Cryptolegendary]

Nope, advisors are just collecting free money many of them doesn't even perform any function to help the team i feel they are not that useful

[Bohdan Rabeha]

I have seen many ICOs' having advisors for namesake and only a few have for real. Can we believe a project based on the Advisors?

Or is it necessary for ICOs' to have Advisors before Token sale? Seen some using Bounty campaign to get Advisors.

Advisors are public people who have experience in the field of activity that they represent. Of course, each advisor has his own experience and range of connections. In my opinion, many advisors are temporary in this market. They are not ready to go to the end and develop this industry. And this is normal because the market is young.

I have a list of advisors who had successful projects and in some projects i participated as bounty hunter. I follow them mainly but the market is growing, new people come with more experience and goals. Therefore, i recommend that you first look at the project. It is necessary to disassemble into parts and allocate time to make a lot of conclusions, for example to communicate with team, look at the activity of social networks, chats, etc.

[pinoycash]

Nope, the whole Advisors thing is a bad thing for the space, most of these so called Advisors bring little to nothing to the project, there was a survey carried out on this topic and most of these Advisors said they know little to nothing about the project they were advising which is a blow to the whole ecosystem. They collect free tokens and dump on people

Yes that what i always observe in any ICO project, We don't know know what happen behind the scene but the main role for advisors are just for added picture in the team section that will create an illusion that an ICO project has a high quality and experience team,

Most advisory team takes 4-10% of token allocation an amount should be shared by bounty hunters since they are the one who do most of the marketing for a project