The statistics could no longer be ignored. Most ICOs tank, and stay tanked, once 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 trend in the last few months has been for ICOs to lose value post-crowdsale, with many buyers waiting in vain for the ‘moon’ they were promised, once the cryptocurrency hits an exchange portal.Have a look at
blockchain consulting for more info on this.
What is however not being discussed is the principal reason why we are witnessing this phenomenon, and what participants in a crowdsale, including the rating companies most of us rely on to make a choice, must be doing wrong in picking which ICO have most value, or has the best probability of rising in value once the crowdsale is over.
While there are a lot of reasons one could legitimately proffer for the phenomenon, there is one fact that I think is probably more responsible 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 always thought the need for blockchain technical experts or ICO technical advisors is exaggerated, or even outrightly misplaced, when a project is judged by that criteria, unless the project is actually trying to create a brand new coin concept. For most ERC20 Tokens and copycat coins, the real important consideration should be the Business Plan behind the token and the managerial antecedents and executive profiles of the Team leaders.
As anyone involved in the industry should know, creating an ERC20 token from Ethereum, or similar tokens from other cryptocurrencies, does not take any great technical skill or require any overrated blockchain advisor (as a matter of fact, with new software out there, an ERC20 Token can be done in less than 10minutes by a complete technical newbie.
So technical should no longer even be a big deal for tokens anymore). The key should be the business plan; level of business experience; competence of the project leaders and the business marketing strategy of the main company raising the funds.
Frankly, as an Attorney and Business Consultant of over 30 years myself to several companies globally, I cannot I cannot understand why people keeping looking for some Russian or Korean or Chinese ‘Crypto Whiz’ or ‘Crypto Advisor’ to determine the strength of an ICO for what is basically a crowdfunding campaign for a BUSINESS CONCEPT…
I am of the strong opinion that is one of the major reasons why most ICOs never live up to their prelaunch hype. In an era where there is an abundance of token creation software, platforms and freelancer, the disproportionate focus on the blockchain experience or technical ability of the promoters is mostly misplaced. It’s like trying to value the probable success of a company based on the ability of its staff to create a good website or app. That train left the station long ago with the proliferation of technical hands on freelancing sites like Guru; Upwork, freelancer and even Fiverr.
People seemed too caught up in the hype and the technical qualifications of people promoting an ICO, particularly ERC20 Ethereum based tokens and then wonder why a technically superior Russian, Chinese or Korean guy cannot deliver the business end of the company after the fundraising campaign.
Even a lot of our ICO Rating companies seemed to allocate a disproportionate number of points to crypto experience of team member, how many crypto advisors they have, and the ICO success experience they have on their team, rather than focusing on the underlying business model to be created with the funds raised. Once one understands that over 90% of the cryptos and ICOs out there are simply tokens created to raise crowdfunds for an idea, and just not a token for token’s sake, then peoples emphasis will shift from technical angles, to the more relevant work of evaluating the business idea itself, and corporate business plan.