Don't be too quick to judge ICOs

[Redemption59]

Most of these ICO projects started or came to the market at the wrong time. Most of these ico projects had nothing unique to add to the existing market and most also ended up as scam projects whiles others are dormant currently due to lack of funds and the fact that most ico's are facing these problems does not mean some still can't deliver, some can really deliver with the right funds available and hence we shouldn't be quick in judging ico's because some can really surprise.

[1714801155]

1714801155

[1714801155]

1714801155

[1714801155]

1714801155

[1714801155]

1714801155

[kawetsriyanto]

Most of these ICO projects started or came to the market at the wrong time.

What do you mean by "came at wrong time"? It is about the time or the marketing strategy or the quality of the project itself?
I think there is no wrong time if it is a good project made by quality team members. They must know what crypto market needs and how to make an ICO be interested. The marketing strategy should be the point, but don't forget finally the quality of the project will determine the success or failure in the end.

[TheICE007]

You are very right, I think because most of them encountered a scam ICO so they generalize all initial coin offering to be scam which is totally wrong, like you said, sometimes we need to give the projects time to grow, but no, we want to see it perform too good immediately which might not happen, Not all ICOs are scam.

[BennyK]

Most of these ICO projects started or came to the market at the wrong time. Most of these ico projects had nothing unique to add to the existing market and most also ended up as scam projects whiles others are dormant currently due to lack of funds and the fact that most ico's are facing these problems does not mean some still can't deliver, some can really deliver with the right funds available and hence we shouldn't be quick in judging ico's because some can really surprise.

Of course, these are some of the various aspects we must consider before drawing a complete judgment on all ICOs. Some ICOs fail not entirely because they were scam but insufficient funds, wrong timing of the market, unfinished products and platform etc can be the major causes for the halt or pause in some ICOs.

[coaprotet]

Do not get me wrong, there are still great projects that are collecting good funds and have already a great product even on such a market, but the problem is that even such a company can fall apart because of bad management decisions.

[5thFear]

There were some good project but then there were some people who thought of it as a get rich overnight scheme and used the name of ICO to achieve their goal. A few of them got success but it brought bad name to the crypto world and to ICO's especially. And now we have lost trust of the investors in the crypto industry.

[BigBrother]

Any ICO project should first of all fulfill its promises to investors. If investors have not received the promised profits and the project violates the terms, it is probably just Scam and unfortunately, such projects 99%. Only 1% of projects achieve significant results in a short time, to find such a project is like meeting a unicorn.

[dzhan]

I am sure that not all ICO projects are scams, and that there are still many good and promising projects, and I agree that judging ICOs fastly can mislead you, because to judge the project you have to take your time, and to study carefully its whitepaper, product, team experience, and so many other factors.

[wheelz1200]

I personally do not believe this statistics that 99% of ICOs are scam, because some ICOs fail do not mean they are all scam. I usually tell people that starting an ICO is like starting a new business, it might succeed immediately, it might fail presently but have a great future and it might fail totally beyond redemption. So because a project is failing to perform presently or fail totally do not mean it is a scam. Don't get me wrong here, I never said there are no scam projects but the rate is not as high as alleged. Judging a project based on its first few years is wrong, give it time to realize its potentials.

Whatever you want to believe have at it.  Yeah some businesses fail in the beginning but they dont go public and sell shares of their company when it's just a concept do they?  It's a pretty bad comparison you made here but to each their own.  Good luck buying into those scams

[K4C]

People tend to rate how.genuine a project is based on the ROI the get and this is a very bad way to rate projects, there are scam projects out there that are doing well in the market because price is all they have to show and people still don't care, and there are also projects that are genuine but are neglected or tagged scam because they are not doing so well in the market, people should change their perspective.

[SlimShadyMmp]

Considering the whole ICO market if you look at it closely you will notice that most of these ICO just collect fund and decide to not speed up implementation and present user with a working product hence most people that fall victim to those determine it as scam To be honest most ICOs are fast at collecting funds but actual work takes years and that mostly brings down the token price to 80% losses Thats not good at all

[mahibul49]

most of the people judge legit ICO by returning percentage but i am really opposite of this.at first you have to see if team is developing something real for the future.some project raise money and pump by themselves and later dont do anything .

[dentolas]

well, surely not all ICO's are scams, and crypto-statistics are definitely strange... but... we should note that there are the pure blunt scams, and also the adandonments after a few months post-ICO, the mysterious dumps after sudden positive news that in the end don't happen, etc, etc
We need to look at both sides of the question and always use critical thinking

[wheelz1200]

well, surely not all ICO's are scams, and crypto-statistics are definitely strange... but... we should note that there are the pure blunt scams, and also the adandonments after a few months post-ICO, the mysterious dumps after sudden positive news that in the end don't happen, etc, etc
We need to look at both sides of the question and always use critical thinking

So are you saying abandonment after a few months is not a pure blatant scam?  Some "team" taking $1mil + and then splitting months after is one of the worst cases of a scam.  Keep saying it but it wont happen STOP handing these people free money and then crypto can progress, otherwise we will sit in this pool of bad actors until the "free money schemes" go away.

[MaiQwaN]

The ideas of many past projects are a meaningless dummy from the point of view that they cannot give any benefit to people. In fact, this is also fraud in relation to their investors.

[motun01]

I don't think this logic applies to the present ICOs we have in the cryptocurrency market.
In 2107 it might be true, but tight now if a project doesn't have a working product and dumps to the level of -99% after listing, it is almost impossible for that project to be great again. This is because with a useful end product, the coin will have utility and this more potential

[Bonwin]

A pot of projects may not be aimed at scamming people, but poor management, lack of technical knowhow,  lack of seriousness on the part of the team, lack of communication between the team and the community, delays in roadmap and many more.
If the team of a project is well grounded an has the expertise, the the project might succeed.

[Ben Shedly]

I personally do not believe this statistics that 99% of ICOs are scam, because some ICOs fail do not mean they are all scam. I usually tell people that starting an ICO is like starting a new business, it might succeed immediately, it might fail presently but have a great future and it might fail totally beyond redemption. So because a project is failing to perform presently or fail totally do not mean it is a scam. Don't get me wrong here, I never said there are no scam projects but the rate is not as high as alleged. Judging a project based on its first few years is wrong, give it time to realize its potentials.

If ICO failed, then this is due to either direct fraud or the incompetence of developers. Many people do not know how to implement their idea, where to get money for it, and then the thought comes to mind, and let's go to the blockchain, there you can easily take money. They don’t understand anything about this, but they came here with their project and conduct ICO, promise that they will make their project better. And how will they do it if they don’t understand anything in this market? That is why they are called cheaters or scammers.

[spydee1522]

Crypto is full of surprises and what was up today can be down tomorrow. Though many ICO projects ended as scam projects but assuredly that does not mean all ICO projects are scam projects. Some have still not lived to their goal due to lack of funds to continue, some just need a single investor who really understand what they are bringing to the crypto world rather than being judged and ill-talked of. The ICO project you see not to deliver will tomorrow surprise you, don't be quick to judge ICO's.

[Onuohakk]

Totally agree with you. Just because ICO project doesn't meet up with their softcap doesn't make it scam project. Although majority of them, it do takes them years to meet up with their target. Whereby keeping their investors worried and confused about the project.