ICO and IEO running at same time for same project

[Google+]

I think if these two fundraisers are used together it will only make the developed project more complicated but for fund collection it will be faster because it uses 2 fundraising methods that are trending among cryptocurrency investments.

[maxreish]

You've mentioned it already.
FUND RAISED.
They do both ICO and IEO projects because of the usual reason-"To Raise Money" from many investors with these both projects. Actually, yes it was confusing as an investor where to choose the best and appropriate project to invest in. But since ICO's reputation isn't that good as of now, most of the investors turn to IEO projects.

[Kezacky]

IEO and ICO are running on the same transition to collect funds from investors, but not so for IEO, IEO has now attracted the attention of investors. Investor confidence has been lost in the ICO they switched to IEO which is more profitable now. Short-term returns are a good investment in IEO.

[Questat]

IEO and ICO are running on the same transition to collect funds from investors, but not so for IEO, IEO has now attracted the attention of investors. Investor confidence has been lost in the ICO they switched to IEO which is more profitable now. Short-term returns are a good investment in IEO.

We can't generalize that statement, IEO maybe more successful that ICO because it's the current trend now, but not all exchanges that offers IEO are successful. TBH, there are only few exchange I know that are successful with their IEO and one good example is Binance, people are waiting for a project to be in Binance launch pad so they can invest because based on trend, investors can make short term return of their money with a good profit.

[jamesndungu1]

This is a smart move to me since most projects that run just ICOs are usually considered as scams and no one wants to invest in a project that could probably be a scam. So, I think running both an ICO and an IEO at the same time for project gives it a better shot at succeeding on funding operations as its a diversified sourcing of funds.

[SistaFista]

With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO  by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?

Basically they are running IEO on their partner exchanges, and ICO on their own.
If the project is good, they can help to promote the exchange and attracting more users to use the exchange.
Nothing confusing, they just selling their coins on multiple platforms.

[torpedo]

It’s all about fundraising, any project that wants to adapt multiple ways to fundraise. It’s fine as long as they are not scams and completely ok.

[Nany79]

With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO  by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?

Some investors do not like to send their IDs or pass KYC, they prefer to join in ICO, like you said some project do ICO and IEO, ICO not required KYC but IEO required KYC.
It is important project run IEO this be sure we can trade this coin after IEO.

[Pamadar]

With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO  by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?

Basically they are running IEO on their partner exchanges, and ICO on their own.
If the project is good, they can help to promote the exchange and attracting more users to use the exchange.
Nothing confusing, they just selling their coins on multiple platforms.

They are maximizing the venue where they can attract more investors to join and participate with their projects. This two venue can do both attract investors, it just IEO's gather much attentions as its work especially to those projects who's been held inside binance and those known exchange. If
the team have that intentions to promote their coin and aiming to have a wide support, then there's no problem if both is being used.

[Iykejunior]

With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO  by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?

I really hate when this happens with desperate projects who just want to sell there tokens and nothing more. You would then see their ico price far higher than their ieo price, all because they want to sell some tokens desperately. This mainly happens with small projects though, the big project plan things out properly and care for their investors

[royalfestus]

This can only happen when the project's IEO is on the light weight exchanges of this space. Maybe they are worried on investors' opinion, some might prefer ICO to IEO. At the end of the day they will lie on the fund raised or couldn't get a bit higher than the softcap. Investors are smarter and its not about the style of raising money. You will be so surprised that a project with credible team can come out and raise ICO within 1 hour even with the present market state. Imagine if Larry page or Jack Dorsey attempt an ICO, this are what we are waiting for as institutions

[Argoo]

With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO  by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?

Yes, many projects initially conduct ICOs for some time, and even with a previously known date for IEO on the exchange. This is generally a good strategy that takes advantage of both forms of fundraising.
For bounty hunters, this is generally very beneficial. I am pleased to join the signing campaign of such an ICO - IEO, because the time of fundraising and the time of the signing campaign are reduced, and the likelihood of a positive result is much greater. It also revives the activities of the ICO at least a little.

[spadormie]

Some projects are running this. They are conducting ICO for their project for private selling and they are asking for an exchange to run their initial coin offering.

[Xanxus024]

If I'm going to invest in a new project I would choose IEO rather than ICO. IEO is much more legit because we can buy the token in good exchange and for sure it will be listed in that exchange. Beside it is a advantage on both new project and the exchange by promoting.

[irixo10]

With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO  by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?

I do not think this true or even possible, even if they should it will look suspicious and most people won't participate. The word ICO now give people shivers as no one wants to risk their funds again or begging the team to list so they can trade their token etc. However, what I have noticed is that new projects which were running ICO previously all switched to IEO when it was evident they are bound to fail. With this reasons, I think the ICOs might never come back and even if they do, the participation won't be much like before.

[mickey_miner]

With the introduction of IEO, there is a great reduction in holding ICO  by the projects.
Even though this is the situation, now a days I have observed that some projects are holding ICO as well as IEO same time. They also don't share the exact amount of funds raised
Isn't it confusing for investors? What are your thoughts? Why projects are using both methods?

I have never met projects that would hold both ICO and IEO. What should confuse investors? In this way, more chances to collect the required amount, the only thing that should arouse suspicion is the non-disclosure of the collected funds

[Mysteryla]

Just as not every ICO seen can be trusted, not every IEO should also be trusted, because some of them can also be lunched by scammers.
I have not also seen a project run two different forms of fundraising programs at the same time, except for some who would first announce ICO, then later change their minds to do IEO, which is not so common, because of unpreparedness. A well prepared project team would have known the direction it is going.

[stigmacryptonight]

This is not new as projects only sell a fraction of their tokens as IEO, the remaining tokens are usually sold as ICO. Major part of the tokens are usually sold in private sales.

For Private Sale, that is usually done often at the beginning before entering the other sales stages. The question @OP is doing ICO and IEO together. Because doing it together will make people confused and the funds will be divided during the sale. Therefore it is better determined before selling, It is better to do in IEO or ICO.

[Chuky92]

This really don't make sense to me and doesn't look legit either, like why doing ICO again when you can fully go for IEO. Unless you are referring to private sale which the team handles themselves before going for IEO, if that's the case then it's not a new thing and doesn't call from alarm too as it has been happening. But if the reverse is the case, someone like me won't bother investing because this is my first time of seeing such and in this case there will be lack of transparency.

[CuriousGeorge]

This is not new as projects only sell a fraction of their tokens as IEO, the remaining tokens are usually sold as ICO. Major part of the tokens are usually sold in private sales.

For Private Sale, that is usually done often at the beginning before entering the other sales stages. The question @OP is doing ICO and IEO together. Because doing it together will make people confused and the funds will be divided during the sale. Therefore it is better determined before selling, It is better to do in IEO or ICO.

But there are some icos were doing it. I remember i were seeing an ico was still running its ICO and at the same time that ico has tried to get the fund from the exchange site too. It looks like that kind of ico used exchange site as a formality to make its token will be more easier to be listed on the exchange site.
Even the fund will be divided but it will go to the same person or project.