Hardcap ICO is no guarantee that the project will succeed

[fndsr]

I think only a few ICOs have reached hardcap, because now they are losing to the IEO. The real project of course the speed of the clear and develover roadmap will continue to struggle to develop the ICO funds obtained, so overall I think the ICO that reaches hardcap will grow rapidly compared to those who reach the softcap.

[Becky666]

I think that now nothing at all can give any guarantees of the project’s success. even if IEO is on a large exchange, the project may die in half a year

Indeed many ICO that succeed years back where projects that actually was backed up with workable product and not just to attract investors to make investment. Even these days with IEO, many tokens that seem good and sure of guarantee may fail to succeed in the future. Have seen ICO that succeed in reaching the Hardcap but yet still fail for the reason of non workable prodcut behind the project.  

[bolshojkush]

ICO is not a guarantee that the project will be successful, because most ICO projects are still limited to concepts and do not have clear references,
but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects.
and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?

If the idea of the project is good, it will in any case be successful, with or without ICO. But, even the most excellent project without ICO requires investment. Take the Etherium, this super successful project and he spent the ICO.

[joseyphil82]

I've seen many projects that have no ICO and no premine performing better than ICO projects and these no ICO projects have lesser chance of scam unlike ICO the funds is enough to be a target for scammers

[ivaf]

Of course, projects that do not carry out ICO (or premine) are good projects After all, this means that they already have money to develop the project.
Or it means that they have no money, and they want to "shoot" at the expense of the idea. And this is very, very risky.

[Argoo]

Hardcap is also not a sign of success in IEO projects. This is just a confirmation that investors believed the ICO project team and gave them their money. In the future, it all depends on the actions of the ICO team itself. It can escape with the money received, or spend it inefficiently, or their activity will be crowned with success and then their tokens will increase in value.

[Cemploon]

At the moment I have not found a project that can reach Hard cap. And I think many ICO projects have difficulty reaching Hard cap. Maybe what you say is true that not all projects that reach Hardcap can succeed. But I think what makes a success is how the Team, Developer and Community work. All three must be able to work well and continue to develop the platform. So that the project can achieve success.

[pawanjain]

There has been a shitload of ICOs in the last 2-3 years. Among them you can find many examples where the below has occured

• ICOs who didn't reach hard cap yet succeeded
• ICOs who reached hard cap and also succeeded
• ICOs who reached hard cap yet failed and
• ICOs who scammed.

So yeah, hardcaps in ICOs are just plain numbers which means nothing.

[gensol]

If a project wants to succeed they will there are some projects that had no ICO but they've been consistent with their project development. ICOs to me is a meanscvof donating money to give some developers whom don't even know what they're developing. Success or failure of ICOs hardcap has nothing to do with projects success it's determ3on the part of the developer that matter.

[fedben]

Yeah, I sensed that as well. There are some projects that did reach its hardcap but yet they failed. At times, I wonder why such projects could have failed having reached its hardcap. ICO projects can be funny at times.

[DeepChipolino]

There has been a shitload of ICOs in the last 2-3 years. Among them you can find many examples where the below has occured

• ICOs who didn't reach hard cap yet succeeded
• ICOs who reached hard cap and also succeeded
• ICOs who reached hard cap yet failed and
• ICOs who scammed.

So yeah, hardcaps in ICOs are just plain numbers which means nothing.

We all know about such options for the development of projects after ICO. It would be nice to know what the ratios at these points are. Is there a link to such a resource?
Although it is possible, it is still too early to compile statistics, as many projects continue to be developed (or they simulate develope ).

[rdewilde]

I will agree with you to a certian extent. First, yes it is true that a project reaching Hardcap doesn't mean it will deliver as promised, as this depends solely on the team and their experience. In the same way, there are Projects which met sotfcap and still fails to deliver.
On the other hand, there are most projects which achieved hard cap and still succeds in delivering what they promised, at the same time there are others which proceeds in delivering their promise just with soft cap.
So the success of a project depends mainly on the team.

[Adriano2010]

Indeed even if a project gather a lot of money that will not guarantee that a project will succeed, and not guarantee that investors will ever recover their money and also to make a profit.

[irixo10]

That's true, a project achieveing hard cap is not a yardstick that it will do well. I think most of these projects might be a product of hype, thus driving investors into investing.
In my own opinion, whether soft cap or hard cap, if the team lacks the relevant experience they will fail to develop the product and services they promised. Moreover, there are projects which are self-funded yet achieveing their aims and objectives.

[ahmia39]

I've seen many projects that have no ICO and no premine performing better than ICO projects and these no ICO projects have lesser chance of scam unlike ICO the funds is enough to be a target for scammers

If indeed premine is better than ICO, then it should be developed and followed, only what I see is the trend is more towards the IEO and many investors leave the ICO, is this premine a new program in crypto? or the old program that you want to update?

[Docbee]

ICO is not a guarantee that the project will be successful, because most ICO projects are still limited to concepts and do not have clear references,
but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects.
and I also agree on this, what about your opinion?

The subject of the post doesn't correspond with your explanation, i don't really understand your argument, do you mean project reaching hardcap doesn't guarantee success or those that engage in any kind of ico without any product to tender is bad?

[reza7777]

1. many ico say if they reach hardcap on website but it turns out after all ends they disappear or say if they will return investor funds
2. projects that really reach hardcap they have a very slow team, that's because they are on vacation and spend a little more investor money (it doesn't really work)
3. those who reach hardcap and work properly will surely launch product and prove promise to investors when listing in the market (but only 1 in 1000 projects)

So I conclude that current project is not a guarantee that project will succeed even though it has reached hardcap

[leonair]

ICO was already have a bad reputation since its madness on 2017, it's true that the Hardcap of any given ICO are merely impossible to reach and I didn't seen any ICO that reach its maximum. Project that don't have an ICO or premined would may be serious but that doesn't guarantee a future success.

[hummer113]

In the crypto-world, there are no guarantees at all, all promises can be broken. I try to choose a project on the team, it gives at least some hope.

[Olayinka225]

Totally agree with you.
There are series of projects that reach hardcap and eventually got listed in some exchanger after the sale of the ICO but reverse is the case after listing as the market sometimes affect the price in that the project itself lack so many things but was just lucky to reach hardcap maybe because of some ratings or hype.