The statistics may not be ignored. Most ICOs tank, and stay tanked, as soon as the tokens get to the crypto exchanges, after the frenzy and ‘FOMO’ attending the crowdsale is over.
Most watchers keeping track of the ICO phenomenon universally agree that the pattern in the last few months has been for ICOs to lose worth put up-crowdsale, with many patrons ready in vain for the ‘moon’ they were promised, once the cryptocurrency hits an trade portal.
What’s however not being discussed is the principal reason why we are witnessing this phenomenon, and what participants in a crowdsale, including the rating firms most of us depend on to select, should be doing improper in picking which ICO have most value, or has the most effective probability of rising in value once the crowdsale is over.
While there are a whole lot of reasons one could legitimately proffer for the phenomenon, there may be one incontrovertible fact that I think might be more accountable for this than most other contending reasons: ICO token valuation and the misplaced emphasis on ‘blockchain experts’, ‘ICO advisors’ or ‘technical whizkids’ for erc20 tokens.
I have at all times thought the need for blockchain technical specialists or ICO technical advisors is exaggerated, or even outrightly misplaced, when a project is judged by that criteria, unless the project is actually making an attempt to create a model new coin concept. For most ERC20 Tokens and copycat cash, the real necessary consideration ought to be the Business Plan behind the token and the managerial antecedents and executive profiles of the Group leaders.
As anyone involved within the business ought to know, creating an ERC20 token from Ethereum, or comparable tokens from different cryptocurrencies, does not take any great technical talent or require any overrated blockchain advisor (as a matter of truth, with new software out there, an ERC20 Token could be achieved in less than 10minutes by a complete technical newbie.
So technical ought to now not even be a giant deal for tokens anymore). The key needs to be the business plan; stage of business expertise; competence of the project leaders and the business advertising strategy of the principle company raising the funds.
Frankly, as an Lawyer and Enterprise guide for ico investors of over 30 years myself to a number of corporations globally, I can not I cannot understand why individuals keeping in search of some Russian or Korean or Chinese ‘Crypto Whiz’ or ‘Crypto Advisor’ to determine the strength of an ICO for what’s basically a crowdfunding campaign for a BUSINESS CONCEPT…
I’m of the sturdy opinion that is among the major reasons why most ICOs never live as much as their prelaunch hype. In an period where there may be an abundance of token creation software, platforms and freelancer, the disproportionate deal with the blockchain experience or technical ability of the promoters is mostly misplaced. It’s like trying to worth the probable success of an organization primarily based on the flexibility of its workers to create a very good internetsite or app. That train left the station long ago with the proliferation of technical palms on freelancing sites like Guru; Upwork, freelancer and even Fiverr.
Folks seemed too caught up within the hype and the technical qualifications of individuals promoting an ICO, significantly ERC20 Ethereum primarily based tokens and then wonder why a technically superior Russian, Chinese or Korean guy cannot deliver the enterprise end of the company after the fundraising campaign.
Even loads of our ICO Rating corporations seemed to allocate a disproportionate number of points to crypto expertise of staff member, what number of crypto advisors they have, and the ICO success experience they’ve on their staff, rather than specializing in the underlying business model to be created with the funds raised