Don't be too quick to judge ICOs

[manismanja]

You said correct but now a days maximum ICOs do scam that's why people have nagative aspect of ICOs. Sometimes they missed real ICOs just for their negative thinking. Any way i also say that we have to change our mind and for select any ICOs must do research their project plan and team then participate.

a lot of negative news that makes a lot of people think negatively.
ICO is not entirely bad and in my opinion he can still improve so before you try it do not think negative first, because it will not necessarily be bad.
a lot of fraud but that does not mean that all fraudulent products still have some goodness and can develop well, if we want to find and research them.

[kidoseagle0312]

This is the sad were most of the community here in the forum are very judgmental, as I can see with it people that always said ico is a scam are the one who did not invest in any of the ico project. They're not victim in short, but there no. 1 person who complaint and judging it. Honestly for me there are still good ico remain in crypto business.

[Barbut]

This is the sad were most of the community here in the forum are very judgmental, as I can see with it people that always said ico is a scam are the one who did not invest in any of the ico project. They're not victim in short, but there no. 1 person who complaint and judging it. Honestly for me there are still good ico remain in crypto business.

This people who are judgmental are the people who didnt earn expected money from advertising icos, but in a fact nobody is guaranteeing any kind of earning with advertising icos, we all depends from ico success, if they fail we fail too, there is no scam there, team just didnt raise enough money to  continue with project.
Choose better next time, choose by the team capability to carry idea to the end, to find some big private investors.

[Ghebung Masam]

yes it is not true. all ICO is a scam.
  but a 20% scam will affect the other 80%.
so there must be decisive steps to stem these fraudsters.

[max6575]

to work as the use of possession on resource to helps as the decision on exchange and collects with the returns as the difference to gives of helps on further to manage of terms with the higher shifts of stages on completion.

[TWW]

yes it is not true. all ICO is a scam.
  but a 20% scam will affect the other 80%.
so there must be decisive steps to stem these fraudsters.

I think now it's reversed, maybe more projects are scam than projects that are really real when making their ICO sales. even when we have started to believe in projects in sales that they do sometimes at the end of the sale there is a problem that makes the developer leave the project.

[gurunanakji777]

Yes I agree with your statement failed ICOs should not be considered as a scam. New projects takes time even bitcoin also took time to gain its value when it has been launched and one should not be in haste in judging a project and to come to an conclusion of scam. Always research yourself do not believe on others word even I was a part of many successful ICOs till date that's why I did not give up and keep participating in ICOs. I know its a huge potential market.

[shakesbear]

They are to blame in general, it would be cool if they really evaluated their business, rather than trying to gather as much as possible on ICO, and then not show the result for a long time.

[Chuky92]

If failed ICOs shouldn't be considered as scams what really caused the project to fail? Did the team returned investors funds?
To be frank majority of ICOs are scams at the same time majority of failed ICOs which achieved Hardcap but didn't deliver are also scams, just coming up with excuses after the whole hype.
I don't doubt, there are good ICOs but they were just little and really doing good. There are projects that kicked off with just sotf cap and did better than those that achieved Hardcap.
To summarize it all, the team behind each ICO or project matters as they will determine whether the project will succeed or fail.

[PuertoLibre]

I completely agree that not all ICO`s are scams, but unfortunately a lot of companies conduct ICOs and then simply disappear and it is impossible to find them at all, so now we need more better to study each project that holds ICO in which we want to invest.

The standarts are clear for all but not everyone agrees to stand against the scam projects. ICOs achieved a huge success with expense of profitable projects and others simply used this as an advantage. I don't agree with the statement treating all projects as a scam ICO without going deeply inside the project details.

[taguig]

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.

You are saying that because you are promoting an ICO, but it's the truth, the stats are real and the proof is on the scam sections, ask old timers on bounty campaign and old investors and they can tell you that the stats are indeed real.

[Sebas.tian]

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. [1]Judging a project based on its first few years is wrong, give it time to realize its potentials.

[1]If the project is up for a few years and can't even deliver a single thing they say on the roadmap, you'll immediately know something's wrong with the project. If you still decide to support it despite knowing this, you deserve to lose money.

I get where you're coming from--the tech is premature and needs more time. But, there stlll has to be a standard for projects to measure their success, not immediately excusing them because they are still new.

[royalfestus]

The success rating is how the project is thriving with trade volume on exchanges later on after ICOs. Failure starts from in the chances of raising  fund to reach softcap, team following roadmap, getting listed on exchange, improve price of product and drive good volume. The analysis is from statistics of the process successes since ICO started in 2013. Interesting we have project over 4000 coin and most have climbed down the ladder with the amount of volume cap in price and trade.

[iMark]

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.

Of course not all ICO are scam, many ICO are successful for example Ethereum, and failing to have a high price does not mean they are scams, not all projects qualify for exchange, not all projects will have high prices immediately, but that does not mean they are scam, you just lack of lucky to be able to sell faster.

[Ucy]

You made a good point.

There are lots of scams actually, but the point is, ICO is the best way so far to fund a crypto startup without central authority or investor.
It currently has no suitable alternative. It will definitely get better in the future when we begin take the scams seriously with effective anti-scam measures.

[tins]

Now ICOs are often not profitable and do not really have much attention from the community. It is for these reasons that I do not pay much attention to the current ICOs

[mekar sari]

Now ICOs are often not profitable and do not really have much attention from the community. It is for these reasons that I do not pay much attention to the current ICOs

I agree with you ICO has been very bad in the eyes of investor ICO deceives investors by all means, for example manipulating sales results, prolonging exchangers, not running the roadmap and just disappear

[flash101k]

In investment, there is always a more significant risk and risk, bringing more profits to investors. Should not evaluate all failed ICO is Scam. Because if all the ICOs are successful, it is impossible. Money needs to circulate, and liquidity is the decisive factor for a project's success.

[Runbitup]

In investment, there is always a more significant risk and risk, bringing more profits to investors. Should not evaluate all failed ICO is Scam. Because if all the ICOs are successful, it is impossible. Money needs to circulate, and liquidity is the decisive factor for a project's success.

there are many factors that can make the ICO fail so we don't need to panic if we see that there are many ICOs that fail or scam.
and we cannot say that all failed ICOs are fraudulent because there are many things that can make the ICO fail even though the team has done everything.

[Evrolina]

Many have concluded that ICO is a scam because of their experience when it comes to ICO but the truth us that not all ICO is a scam, there are some ICO that have been concluded successfully.