is advertising for ICOs unethical?

[Rogkim1]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

No one spends so much money on advertising. There is no point in such costs. Usually spending on advertising is not more than 15-30% of the total budget for the development of the project. It all depends on the marketing strategy.

[colenax]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

well, where did you get information like that?
I think there is management to overcome the budget for advertising and how much sales to get. so I think what you say is not true at all

[beeelzebub]

Like all kind of marketing it is not unethical at all but if people now it is marketing.

If you advertise it without knowledge of reciever, that would become unethical.

[Btra]

Advertising of the ICO is not unethical because there is no people will harm with this. But, fake ICO should be monitorised. Google also allow advertising on it's platform which is the very big and influence all over the world. So, it is not unethical.

[PuertoLibre]

Advertising is necessary in any case but some sectors require more attention than others. New Social Media Administrators can confirm this idea as well and hiring professional managers can boost your project's view and service quality.

[Micerker]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

Your judgments are entirely wrong ICOs projects often use the Tokens they create to pay for promotional expenses through bounty.
Also, they can pay a small fee to place ADS on popular websites like Bitcointalk, CMC.

[Danslip]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

well, where did you get information like that?
I think there is management to overcome the budget for advertising and how much sales to get. so I think what you say is not true at all

So many fake advertise sites can make another example of misconception and this is not rocket science to control it. I think having a strong plan can change the rules of a game and reliable projects will gladly take advantage of it.

[akamit]

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Can you point us to a project where you have seen they have spent 90% of the fund raised from investors used for promotion?

If it is true then the project is doing a wrong thing, perhaps a scam imo.

[guoyu78]

Any ICO that tells you this is a very fishy one because it is not realistic and does not make any sense at all to quote such amount of money for promotion as against what they will use to develop the project, if they are using almost 80% of money raised for promotion, which they will still use part of the remaining one to register on an exchange, then what is left of them to develop the project, are they developing a mini poultry farm or what.

Secondly what promotional means will gulp such amount, how much are they even paying bounty hunters who do the main job, bounty hunters are the major tools these people use in promoting their project which highest they separate is 5 to 10%, so mate, check you fact very well again.

[Bitze]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

an ico with such plans or requirements is already suspicious. no project has to spend
90% of its income directly on advertising. i haven't seen such a plan myself yet but if so it's certainly not recommendable

[sumangs]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

That is why there are bounties and airdrops to promote those ICOs. Your example has a bad marketing. Also who would spend a money that is 9 million dollars for an ICO of 10 million dollars? Maybe a 9 million dollar for a 50 million dollar ICO would be a good trade.

And if you want to include bounties as a promotion or other kind of advertisements, there is an allocation in percentage of the collected money from ICO that would still depends on the sales. The payment are on tokens so it is not really sure on the promised amount in a form of tokens. There are many factors on this and most of it is on the exchange listing and most of the promised amount payed in bounty are not exact.

So the answer if it is ethical, NO! It is not. ICO has risk and it is your choice if you want to join or not. Only few get the luck of becoming a success, so better choose the right one.

[accounting 181293]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

wait if you see they don't really spend money on promotions. first, bounty campaign they pay using their tokens. so this does not include costs. promotion with advertisements, maybe this requires a fee but I make sure it won't reach 1M or even more. numbers that are too big are only for promotion, what's more now Google and Facebook have banned crypto ads. so actually they only spend a small fee for promotion.

[pushups44]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

This is an interesting question. I'd say it's ethical to advertise as long as it is a small percentage of the overall budget and made transparent to investors beforehand. Also, it's fine as long as the project abides by applicable laws regarding running an ICO.

[Script3d]

I think most of the ico's pay from their wallet, if they are gonna advertise from the start where will the money will come from, also they can do bounty campaign so they don't need to spend real $$$ to advertise their project.

[batang_bitcoin]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

No, they have raised $10m but they have an expense of $9M. But you may not know if that amount is already part of their budget.

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

The promotion might be high and costly but if their project succeeds and is being looked at the long term. They can generate more revenue and that average expense for the promotion will be recovered.

[fasdorcas]

Seriously using 9Millon on promotion?? Where did you get this info?? I think you must put link about that's news. Because i see some project only using small funds for promotion, or maybe nothing, He just using bounty hunter then bounty hunter will get paid from their token project. And i think is fool developers using 9 Million only for promotion and i never hear about that

I think it is time for ICOs to spend the money they looted, on advertisement to attract more users. Trust me this does not happen any more. IEO is an alternative and when people have alternatives, they just do not pay attention to investing in projects which are dubious. ICOs have lost their prestige and advertising it now will not help the least. IEO will never advertise because it has already gotten the fame and costumer base.

[DeathProxy]

I would not say it's unethical but i will say it's a misplacement of priority.  Ico should spend a large chunk of money developing thier platform and have a working product.  This will help cut cost of advertising and give their ico an edge over others

[Galantin]

I would not say it's unethical but i will say it's a misplacement of priority.  Ico should spend a large chunk of money developing thier platform and have a working product.  This will help cut cost of advertising and give their ico an edge over others

With work products, a project can raise a lot of money. And cover all your financial costs. But most of the projects need investors' money. And when their project crumbles, the complete problem begins.

[bettercrypto]

I've noticed many ICOs have to spend a lot of money on promotions and advertising.

For example, let's say an ICO raises 10 million dollars but has to spend 9 million on promotion.

Therefore, they only really raised 1 million for the project.

Isn't this unethical?

If you're starting a company and looking for investors the traditional way via stock equity, you would never spend 9 million or even 5 million or even 2 million in order to raise 10 million from investors.

This begs the question, what ratio of promotion cost versus funds raised for ICOs is ethical?

And how do we know if an ICO is using an ethical ratio?

How do you say so? It is usual to advertise an ICO since the developers need investors for their project. It will not be funded without the help of investors and investors are gained by promoting or conducting an ICO. It is not unethical, but it is usual to the people to make advertisment that will help their project to boost up.

[alisafidel58]

Yes, it is unethical because you are promoting a coin or token that can be a potential scam to get some reward from promoting or advertising it. We all the money but I guess we should find a different way to gain it and not buy promoting ICOs.