Evaluation of ICO tokens and inappropriate emphasis on blockchain technical experts and ICO advisors

[ad_1]

Statistics could no longer be ignored. Most ICOs are tanked and left without a reserve once the tokens hit the cryptocurrency exchange, after the madness and “FOMO” attending the crowdsale are over.

Most observers who track the ICO phenomenon generally agree that the trend over the past few months is that ICOs are losing value after a crowdsale, and many buyers are waiting in vain for the “month” they were promised as soon as the cryptocurrency goes public. portal.

However, what is not discussed is the main reason why we observe this phenomenon, and the fact that crowdsale participants, including the rating companies on which most of us rely to make choices, must make mistakes when choosing which ICOs have the most value, or are most likely to increase in value once the crowdsale is over.

While there are many reasons why this phenomenon could be legitimately suggested, there is one fact that I think is more responsible for this than most other controversial reasons: the evaluation of ICO tokens and the wrong emphasis on “blockchain experts”, ICO consultants or ‘technical whiskeys’ for erc20 tokens.

I’ve always thought that the need for blockchain technical experts or ICO technical consultants is exaggerated or even completely out of place when a project is evaluated against these criteria, when the project isn’t really trying to create a whole new concept of coins. For most ERC20 tokens and coin copies, the business plan behind the token and the managerial pre- and executive profiles of team leaders should be a real important factor.

As anyone in the industry needs to know, creating an ERC20 token from Ethereum or similar tokens from other cryptocurrencies does not require great technical skills and does not require an inflated blockchain consultant (in fact, with the new ERC20 Token software can be done in less than 10 minutes a complete technical beginner.

So technical should no longer be a big issue for tokens). The key should be a business plan; level of business experience; the competence of project managers and the business marketing strategy of the main fundraising company.

Honestly, as a lawyer and business consultant who has been working for several companies in more than 30 years around the world, I can’t understand why people keep looking for some Russian, Korean or Chinese “Crypto Whiz” or “Crypto Advisor” to determine the strength of the ICO since it is basically a crowdfunding company for the BUSINESS CONCEPT …

I hold the firm belief that is one of the main reasons why most ICOs never justify their hype. In an era where there is a wealth of software for creating tokens, platforms, and freelancers, disproportionate attention to the blockchain experience or the technical capabilities of promoters is largely inappropriate. It’s like trying to gauge a company’s likely success based on the ability of its employees to create a good website or app. This train has long since left the station with the proliferation of technical hands on the sites of freelancers such as the Guru; Upwork, freelancer and even Fiverr.

It seemed that people were too involved in the hype and technical skills of the people promoting the ICO, especially Ethereum’s ERC20, and then wondered why a technically superior Russian, Chinese or Korean guy couldn’t achieve the end of business after a fundraising campaign.

It seemed even a lot of our ICO ranking companies were allocating a disproportionate number of crypto-team member experience points, the number of crypto-consultants and ICO success experience to their team, rather than focusing on a core business model to be built on the funds raised

Once you realize that over 90% of cryptographies and ICOs are just tokens created to attract crowdfunds for an idea, and just not a sign for the sake of it, then people’s focus will shift from technical perspectives to more relevant work on evaluating the business idea itself and the corporate business. plan.

Once we move into this era of valuation, before deciding to buy or invest in a cryptocurrency, we will begin to assess the future prospects or value of our tokens based on important business considerations such as:

– Swot-analysis of the company and its promoters

– Managerial competence and experience of team leaders

– The validity of a business idea is beyond the creation of a token

– The company’s marketing plan and strategy for selling these ideas

– Ability to supply basic products to the market

– Customer base of products and services created by the company

– and the basis for designing acceptance in the market

Most people have failed to realize that the growth potential of their tokens after an ICO depends not so much on anything technical, but on what happens in the fundraising company and the expected increase in the company’s valuation as it disseminates its business plan and delivers products for business.

Of course, buying a cryptocurrency is not buying shares and not buying the security of any company. We get it, but tokens respond just as stocks respond to good and bad news about a company. The only difference is that in the case of encryption the effect is amplified 100 times.

So when a company reaches some financial or business stages, the price of its token on the exchange will rise … and it will go down quickly if nothing good happens. Therefore, what the company will do and how it will do it after the ICO should be crucial for those who do not want to see the value of its tokens and stay down forever.

Of course, most tokens will crash as soon as the tokens hit the cryptocurrency exchange after the ICO, due to those who want to make an immediate profit, but whether it will ever return to give you the expected multi-valued profit will always depend on the criteria I already outlined above. Once you have purchased the token, the value of “crypto-consultant” and “technical visit” goes to zero relative to the potential of your tokens for up to a month.

In line with this reality, I think a smart crypto buyer or investor should focus less on how many crypto consultants the project has or how technically sound the team is (if the company’s core business isn’t technical) and focus more on management, marketing and a potential customer base of the company that raises funds through the ICO.

In other words, spend more points on ICO business and management, rather than on technical jargon that won’t help your token in the market when the money is raised!

[ad_2]