Scams or Money Makers?

>>3445351
Both

ICO's are stupid.

When the coin hits the markets there's a huge dump. Just buy the dip then.

What exactly is the market paying millions for? This is why people want regulation (whether you agree with it or not). You want to ask for big boy sums? You better have more than a few buzzwords and "backing" from some companies.

>>3445410
If there are ICO people lurking here, here's some tips from average person:

1. Breakdown all definitions to a simple an explanation as possible.

2. Build on those terms you have just defined in terms of describing your plan.

3. Always try to use graphics when showing your plan's timeline, it's very helpful. Again, simplicity is always better for things in tech. The more people understand your idea, and problems you're trying to solver, the more likely they are to see its potential.

4. Be very clear of the involvement with other parties, such as companies who are giving backing. Have they just said they've liked your idea. Our are legal agreements involved? Show this off.

Simple and clear. This is a new industry, with a lot of fucking irritating jargon. Break it down, it'll help you grow.

>>3445351
OP,

In the real world, when you need 10 million for your super duper great idea, you might go to banks or investors, and they will want to see:
-a working product (even if demo or prototype).
-cashflow, or some guarantee that money will be generated
-proof that the idea generates money in a real world market
-a team with a great track record
only then, a shitload of due diligence will be done and 9 out of then ideas still won't get money after that

However, with ICO's, we get boatloads of idiots throwing money at projects that:
-don't even have a working demo
-wrote some half-assed "white paper" that has to give the project an air of scientism for the reddit crowd
-have a product that hasn't even been proven in any markte, just in the heads of a couple of nobodies
-is basically a bitcoin fork with some buzzword tacked on

It's quite frankly disgusting but yeah, it's also a gold rush. Just don't think 1% of these projects will ever really solve a real world problem and generate money in the real economy.

>>3445351
People call ICOs scams for a lot of different reasons.
1. People want to scare you from buying ICOs so they can buy more ICOs themselves. Many ICOs have very limited sales and are over in minutes. The more buyers you can scare away the more likely you can buy more tokens yourself, then flip them for a big gain when it hits exchanges.

2. People want to short Bitcoin and Ether, or dip the price so they can buy in long themselves. Demand for ICOs = demand for Bitcoin/Ether/Litecoin, because people who want ICOs usually have to buy those coins with fiat to invest in ICO or trade for tokens, and when they buy with fiat the price of those goes up.

3. Regulators and rich folk don't want poor people getting rich and being disruptive. Most rich people get rich and stay rich by investing in promising startups cheap and then selling the stock for massive gains when it hits exchanges, then taking the gains and doing the same thing with another startup. Same principal with ICOs, and if these companies weren't using ICOs to do this independently then they'd have to do it through the traditional VC model and make VCs much more money.

4. Bitcoin maximalists hate ICOs because Bitcoin doesn't have many ICOs, most of the ICO devs are working on Ethereum, and the more dev support ETH has the worse BTC performs longterm. So scared BTC goons are always running around shitting on ICOs because they know if ICOs succeed it means less BTC gains.

5. Some moron invested in a shitty ICO, or sent his money to a scam address, or just didn't get returns he expected, or couldn't buy the ICO he wanted because it sold out or whatever the fuck he has an axe to grind and just talks shit about all ICOs in general.

Really if you just do the research and invest in good shit you can make tons of money. ETH was an ICO, OMG was an ICO, Golem was an ICO, there are lots of ICOs that have already made lots of people millionaires. That's not a scam.

>>3445353
fpbp

>>3445410
>>3445693
>People shouldn't be allowed to spend their money the way they want: the posts.
One thing a lot of people still fail to grasp is that we have some of the most talented coders and thinkers in the world working with each other across borders to build a new economic system from the ground up. One built on the technologies available to us today that enable new concepts, forms, and modes of exchange that were not available or even conceivable centuries ago due to the limitations of old technology.

A lot of oldies just will never "get it". They are so stuck in their old concepts and just cannot create the new conceptions in their brain to understand it. To them, convenience is just doing the same thing the same way until they day. The new generation who grows up learning this stuff like a new language will be the ones who really get it.

The new generation will understand the promise of using an economic and financial system that is free from centralized control and interference. Where you can spend your money where you want how you want.

>>3446399
That's not true, I think one of the biggest things crypto has going for it is being redundancy for the current monetary system. I hope it does rival traditional methods of money transfer, eventually.

But I don't think that it's reasonable for this volume of cash to be demanded for things which are really just based on potential, currently.

This has happened before. This is exactly what the Tech Bubble of the 90s was about. "Potential" and buzzwords asking for millions, with no business models. People got rich, people got poor. The Nasdaq only recovered a few years ago.

There will always be those needles in the haystack, the Amazons, the Ebays. But there is far more shit to wade through.