Modernizing old projects

[SirLancelot]

Going through my old wallet today I stumbled on some old and dead coins which at a time promised to offer so many good features and solve real-time problems but at this moment their nowhere to be found and are dead and gone with all the good ideas behind those projects. Some of which can solve some services issues faced in the industry today and this made me ask this question, which of the old projects will you like to see coming back again to achieve its original project idea to solve some issues facing the cryptocurrency industry at the moment and why do you want to see them back identify the real-time problem that coin can solve.

1. There might be a reason on why they didn't follow what is written on the whitepaper. It could be because they lack of funds, and they didn't achieve their quota but they fail on this maybe because the investors didn't like what they are offering.

2. That is why it's important that you know and are familiar on each of your team members especially if they are assigned to hold the funds for the project.

3. Hack's cant be avoided but a project must try hard to build a secure system that won't be easily accessed by hackers.

4. About this one. This is also normal where challenges can come but a strong project can survive these trials no matter what.

[wmaurik]

Until now, I still find even those who are still in the development stage for a marketing. If this is a means to refresh and increase their turnover in regenerating it's legal. Outside the ethereum network I often encounter it.

It's only part of the expertise possessed by the developer, so there's no need to worry if you don't like it because every developer always tries to make different products every year to compete in terms of marketing with existing products first.

you're right, Smart contrack was introduced on the ethereum network and was phenomenal since it was introduced. I've known it since 2020 maybe it's not too late.
I support any efforts in redeveloping developers, but I personally prefer a new project with a new whitepaper (if that's potential).

2020 is still not too late for you to know, even though in that year networks such as BSC have begun to be used by many new projects which are also no less potential than projects that have succeeded through the Ethereum network in the past. But the thing to remember is that the potential of a new project will not be known before the project launches its product.

[ANSEL_2.0]

One of the fastest way to know how serious a project is after release is by watching it's roadmap closely, this is after you've make sure the project have good utility, many projects come into this space with empty words, they create good roadmaps but they won't follow up that roadmap, you will see updates of this month in roadmap happening five months later, that's a big red flag.

[Piesel]

One of the fastest way to know how serious a project is after release is by watching it's roadmap closely, this is after you've make sure the project has good utility, many projects come into this space with empty words, they create good roadmaps but they won't follow up that roadmap, you will see updates of this month in roadmap happening five months later, that's a big red flag.

Yeah, utility is the ultimate motion in the project's success, for a coin to keep it relevant in the market the project need to have a high user base and community support, and some ico project has the underdeveloped utility concept that was forced to stop at some point because of external forces and market conditions. Those are the project I want to see reactivated to meet up with present demands in the cryptocurrency industry.

[el kaka22]

I understand 4, because the market could be doing terrible and the project may fail. However, as a person who has been here for a decade or so, and been part of dozens of projects, from a very small scale translation stuff, to actually being a co-partner to it as well, I can tell you one thing that ruins all of the projects; centralization.

All of the projects are centralized these days and not only that is a problem but the reality is that investors do want it to be centralized as well, like you could build a project and let it be, but then they will end up with telling you do more, investors will ask the team to improve it, meaning centralization.

[Xal0lex]

This is a frequent problem of young projects. Even though they sometimes offer interesting products, ultra-technological, which are ahead of competitors' products, they still fail. For a variety of reasons:

• Illiterate marketing;
• Inexperience of the team;
• Lack of investors;
• A product too complicated for ordinary users to understand;
• Too narrow a niche,

etc

From my observation experience, I can say that it's easier for teams to create a new coin than to repurpose an old product and adjust it to the new concept, because creating something from scratch is much easier than redoing an old one.

[isaac_clarke22]

....but then again we could still find some good ico projects that can be rebuilt and transformed to fit into the current dispensation.

Maybe OP, but it might be hard to find one nor get back the interest of some devs to get their feet wet again due to how bad of a reputation was ICO back around 2017. Those days were still amazing not gonna lie and I would go back to those glorious days if I had to for those ICOs. Too bad that scammers/scumbags brought the market into crap.

[Piesel]

....but then again we could still find some good ico projects that can be rebuilt and transformed to fit into the current dispensation.

Maybe OP, but it might be hard to find one nor get back the interest of some devs to get their feet wet again due to how bad of a reputation was ICO back around 2017. Those days were still amazing not gonna lie and I would go back to those glorious days if I had to for those ICOs. Too bad that scammers/scumbags brought the market into crap.

You have a good point there the way the project ended previously has a big deal and the reputation is what will set the project make it the first choice among other new projects who can offer similar services and be able to build a new brand effortlessly instead of renewing an old bad project.

[sana54210]

1. There might be a reason on why they didn't follow what is written on the whitepaper. It could be because they lack of funds, and they didn't achieve their quota but they fail on this maybe because the investors didn't like what they are offering.

2. That is why it's important that you know and are familiar on each of your team members especially if they are assigned to hold the funds for the project.

3. Hack's cant be avoided but a project must try hard to build a secure system that won't be easily accessed by hackers.

4. About this one. This is also normal where challenges can come but a strong project can survive these trials no matter what.

Unfortunately, there are too many projects that fail as well that people claim scam. Some projects are not just scams, they aim at nothing to scam, I was part of a project like that. The team ended up getting absolutely no money at all, it was like few thousand dollars which all went to marketing and going bigger, and then one day a huge 50k happened, and that was a great amount for us, which was still nothing in the grand scheme of the project making world, what happened?

We spent that on listings, got listed, didn't get traded, got delisted, all money gone, and we just died. Failure, but we lost money on it and not made any money at all.

[Piesel]

1. There might be a reason on why they didn't follow what is written on the whitepaper. It could be because they lack of funds, and they didn't achieve their quota but they fail on this maybe because the investors didn't like what they are offering.

2. That is why it's important that you know and are familiar on each of your team members especially if they are assigned to hold the funds for the project.

3. Hack's cant be avoided but a project must try hard to build a secure system that won't be easily accessed by hackers.

4. About this one. This is also normal where challenges can come but a strong project can survive these trials no matter what.

A lot of factors can contribute to the failure of a project and what you mentioned is one of such factors but that is classified under external factors, this is so because before a project make it to the market the team should have made all the necessary arraignment that will aid the smooth running when the finally goes public.

[smyslov]

... Some of which can solve some services issues faced in the industry today and this made me ask this question, which of the old projects will you like to see coming back again to achieve its original project idea to solve some issues facing the cryptocurrency industry at the moment and why do you want to see them back identify the real-time problem that coin can solve.

Not one of them, if the coin is dead or long been dead and they are making a comeback expect them to suffer the same thing like lack of support and poor activity coming from developers, there are investors who lose their money from investing from these dead coins if they want to make a return they should compensate these investors, investors will think that they are going to scam people again so it's better for these dead coins to stay dead.

[Rengga Jati]

Project fails because:
1: team failed to follow the whitepaper

This is mostly, moreover if they cannot realize their own roadmap, like the development of the projects, listing on exchange schedules. Additionally, the lack of funds also becomes one big problem for a project to rise up and develop. If they cannot gain or collect enough funds, they will easily fall down. On the other hand, sometimes, a team also only focuses on how ways to gain money, much more money to collect, but after getting the money, they don't care enough about the projects and leave the investors and community in the confusion and no project development. This means that the team focus only on the money, not the project.

which of the old projects will you like to see coming back again to achieve its original project idea to solve some issues facing the cryptocurrency industry at the moment and why do you want to see them back identify the real-time problem that coin can solve.

If that is about the top coins, they still have the chances. But if this only the old coins but they have no development, I don't think they have a chance. They may be dead projects and cannot be lifted up again. No hope for worthless projects.

[Piesel]

Not one of them, if the coin is dead or long been dead and they are making a comeback expect them to suffer the same thing like lack of support and poor activity coming from developers, there are investors who lose their money from investing from these dead coins if they want to make a return they should compensate these investors, investors will think that they are going to scam people again so it's better for these dead coins to stay dead.

You may be right just like what we are seeing what is happening with Luna coin swapped to luna 2.0 and since then the coin has been struggling to get to foot on the ground, so many projects that have failed before will not enjoy the support of their community for the second time.
But we still have some old projects with good ideas that could help build the industry but have failed because of other factors outside the team such as the covid-19 pandemic.

[lalabotax]

I don't think that old projects that have failed will be successful if they are remodeles again, moreover by the same team. It has very small chance even there is still.
If I want to invest, I don't want to out money into this kind of project model. I will prefer to choose projects that have been in the top market, have great trust, and also high volume at least. More researches are also required.

[Desscount]

I don't think that old projects that have failed will be successful if they are remodeles again, moreover by the same team. It has very small chance even there is still.
If I want to invest, I don't want to out money into this kind of project model. I will prefer to choose projects that have been in the top market, have great trust, and also high volume at least. More researches are also required.

It's also too risky to invest in such a project and of course we don't want to lose money just like that,
as much as possible to reduce risk by investing in existing and well-developed projects,
so the important thing is not to be in a hurry to make a decision to invest in a project and keep doing research first after all it's important

[Piesel]

I don't think that old projects that have failed will be successful if they are remodeles again, moreover by the same team. It has very small chance even there is still.
If I want to invest, I don't want to out money into this kind of project model. I will prefer to choose projects that have been in the top market, have great trust, and also high volume at least. More research are also required.

Even though the possibility of them succeeding is very slim, we can not leave them. out just like that, as I mentioned earlier some of these projects failed not because of their plan but because of external factors that forced them to park up. Recently I started a study and the area of coverage was the blueprints of crypto projects and what scalability problems there are out to solve. To my greatest surprise, I came across several projects with excellent user interfaces that will give cryptocurrency users the best experience, but yet the project is presently on hold due to one of the member developers being sacked and the remaining are afraid of the security of the project to their have to stop.

[mahedi8217]

Perhaps I ought to offer it a reprieve and quit thinking excessively, yet again we should know that not all altcoins are crap coins and not intended to go the distance, definitely we have seen so many reusing groups concocting trick projects however at that point we can scrap out the genuine not many among them who experience comparative confidence with the shifty one yet in various ways and for the most part due to no blame of theirs, would it be advisable for us we presently disregard their turn of events. In any case, I have no coin as a top priority.

[Piesel]

Perhaps I ought to offer it a reprieve and quit thinking excessively, yet again we should know that not all altcoins are crap coins and not intended to go the distance, definitely we have seen so many reusing groups concocting trick projects however at that point we can scrap out the genuine not many among them who experience comparative confidence with the shifty one yet in various ways and for the most part due to no blame of theirs, would it be advisable for us we presently disregard their turn of events. In any case, I have no coin as a top priority.

Perhaps we should place more priority on rebranding of old and good coin/probecr since the have some level of potential and also good user case that will make them undertook so many aspects of the cryptocurrency environment.

[Jaered]

Man old projects are remodeling and cleaning up their codes and acts to suit up to the challenge of New projects. It's the way to go now. Example is introduction of NFTs and DeFi by old projects

[Piesel]

Man old projects are remodeling and cleaning up their codes and acts to suit up to the challenge of New projects. It's the way to go now. Example is introduction of NFTs and DeFi by old projects

Thank you for this reply, a lot of other users have been on negative about old projects and they have written them off as scams. But not all old projects are scams some failed due to one factor or the other, but with the recent developments in the NFTs and metaverse, a lot of remodeling is ongoing. And some projects just rebranded with new code.