Hardcap ICO is no guarantee that the project will succeed

[De4ted]

Right, we cant fully base on the hardcap of a project but the chances of reaching their goals are getting higher when they reach their hardcap.

[1714840410]

1714840410

[1714840410]

1714840410

[1714840410]

1714840410

[1714840410]

1714840410

[Coltpython]

This I agree with. A lot of people think projects that meet hardcap are ideal for investing in. This is a very big mistake and I wonder how people don't realize that it's not the hardcap that matters but the usability of the project's coins/tokens

[Dr.Osh]

This I agree with. A lot of people think projects that meet hardcap are ideal for investing in. This is a very big mistake and I wonder how people don't realize that it's not the hardcap that matters but the usability of the project's coins/tokens

I also agree to this. some of the projects that I have seen really have reached the hardcap, only that it is not in accordance with expectations. however, it all depends on the team, even a project can be run when the softcap is collected. well, that's why there are limitations to softcap and hardcap.

[thaliaand]

This I agree with. A lot of people think projects that meet hardcap are ideal for investing in. This is a very big mistake and I wonder how people don't realize that it's not the hardcap that matters but the usability of the project's coins/tokens

I also agree to this. some of the projects that I have seen really have reached the hardcap, only that it is not in accordance with expectations. however, it all depends on the team, even a project can be run when the softcap is collected. well, that's why there are limitations to softcap and hardcap.

Indeed. There is no quarantee that hardcap reached icos will succeed, but they are potential to be rather than not reached ones. Even if the ico reached hardcap, it still needs time to develop and implement what the team has planned according to the roadmap. Some even take years to make it happen. An ICO that I know reached hardcap last year still yet to see it succeed assuming its token price that still below its ICO price though the development is ongoing.

[BlackFor3st]

Many projects became successful because of ICO though the failure is kinda huge compare to successful one's.
I somewhat disagree to your statement "but projects that don't make ICO or premine are usually serious and good projects" because there are lots of project that became successful by reaching their soft cap/hard cap and they are very serious in making their project the best one.

Though there are other projects that became successful also without launching an ICO or premine but it doesn't mean that they are more reliable compare to those projects who have an ICO.

[Kiweikoo]

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.

ICO is just a fundraising mechanism and I think there is nothing bad about conducting ICOs and raising funds for your startup or product if the project backing it is great. There have been companies with no dollar in the bank and have been funded by Y combinatory. IEO is these days very buzz maker in the market and has been catching attention of investors which could also be used to raise funds.

[webtricks]

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?

Look, there are two things: project and the coin. Mostly people presume that the success of one results in the success of the other but that's not always true. I have seen projects raising hundred of millions in ICO but failing to execute their product/service (e.g. Envion). Whereas there are projects which have furnished a superb product/service but the value of their coin in market is very-very low (e.g. IndaHash).
So ICO is surely not the right parameter to measure the success, there are coins with no ICO being very successful. However, you can't say all projects with no ICO are serious. Most of the Airdrop coins are worthless.

[traderethereum]

I never think that Hardcap ICO can be an indicator to determine the project succeeded because it does not always work especially if the project doesn't tell to the public on how much money they raise for the project.
The hardcap ICO could be another information that might be useful for the investor to join with the project.
If the project can get success in a short time, it doesn't guarantee to see the project can survive in a long time because it would depend on the teams itself.
And that is why many projects cannot continue the project in a long time and make the investor disappointed.

[babicena14]

I agree with you, but such projects are a minority. Successful blockchain startups collect all the necessary amount during a closed sale and they do not need an ICO to attract additional funds, but in this case the project should stand out with an outstanding concept and have a reputation.

[StarofBTC]

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?

Well, I guess it is not a new thing for everyone to know and that is why people keep hammering on the need to careful study the project, especially the team and the product before investing in an ICO. It is only a very genuine successful team with a sound product that will make an ICO successful in future.

This problem of bad projects has really crippled the ICO market and made a lot of investors lose interest because they eventually result to being dump when they hit exchange and because of their weakness, they die off the market by turning to shitcoins and making the holder become bag holder, I think projects without ICO or premine are still the best now.

[madrogue]

Not All ICO hardcap in token sale always good and pump after list in exchange.
I join few airdrops and only 1 their project is Hardcap.
That tokens is pump after list on exchange, but their tokens is locked.

[Silviapold]

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?

I agree with you on this, but I also think that a real product of the project will show the potential of the project.
For example, Yanu.ai reached their softcap with ICO and they're now almost ready with the first prototype of the autonomous bartender, which shows that it's important to actually have a product and it's quite good to bring something different to the market. At least I haven't found a project like that yet

[CryptoLogo]

Hardcap ICO does not guarantee anything. It all depends on the project itself. Many projects without ICO are the same shit as a project with ICO.

[stigmacryptonight]

Mostly it often happens that hardcap projects can possibly not develop in the future. But there are also hard projects that can successfully develop. I think of course we have to look at the roadmap and its development from the project. If the project team is really serious, of course, with the income of the softcap fund alone, it will grow in the future.

[bonker]

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?

Tokens were not much useful like the crypto currencies which was solely created for the purpose of making profits through trading so people already got enough tokens like that so they are not giving interest new projects and even if they reached their hard cap they might get dumped soon after the sale completed.

[watergold]

almost all projects now have the same concept, maybe they start to get confused with ideas. the attraction of investors may be their partners and the team is clear. that might affect the final outcome of the ico

[Gemliting]

you're right, hardcap is no guarantee the project will succeed because they must know how to manage their funds

[bangkecol]

I agree that hardcap ico is no guarantee that the project will succeed.
There is some other factors can make the project will succeed like : consistent to deploy the project appropriate on the roadmap.
Even though the project with the small funds can be succeed if that project is has real use .

[nreal]

Many ICOs give fake data about the amount they earn, most of the projects are growing slowly not as in the roadmap.

[electronicash]

when a project concept isn't really viable and the team lies about the funds they got so they'd be funded more, its going to be a criteria for failure. there are insurance and health related projects that were doing ICO last 2017 but end up in the bottom up to today they are struggling to continue the project. most investors are gone and developers are active. even if they get the hardcap but the team are doing well, they are bound to doom.