The ICO market in 2018
There have been a number of observable changes pertaining to the creation and operation of cryptocurrency ICOs over time, and since the proliferation of the events was first noticed. The peculiarities of ICOs and the aftermath events have necessitated additional actions, most of which are aimed at finding some sort of regulation that could see to it that the fund-raising method is not erased from the cryptocurrency scene, and that it does not loss its acclaimed credibility. Hence, in order to maintain this objective, there seem to be some presenting contrast in the adopted methods of ICO events in 2017 to the prevailing ICO 2018 methods.
These changes seems to be defining ICO in an entirely new way, and a number of cryptocurrency investors and stakeholders are beginning to adopt some of these new features as indices and determining factors for their every decision to participate (or not) in ICO donations.
Matters arising: The inadequacies of ICO programs
Although the ICO projects surge in summer 2017 caused some massive rise in the overall digital currency market capitalization value, it didn’t fail to also come with some accompanying disadvantages and plaguing demerits that have become conspicuous, and consequently threatening to the future of these cryptocurrency adoption procedures and methods. It is in fact pertinent to note that the ill effects that could possibly be, have already began to show on the newly birthed ICO 2018 project events.
One of the issues raised in the wake of the ICO events of the last year was the financial fraud on the part of project developers, that was fast coming on the rise. There were a number of ICO project teams that had conducted successful fundraising, only to abscond with investors’ donations. Stakeholders have blamed this occurrence on the fact that ICO events are not registered or regulated by any recognized body, neither is there any ombudsman to put their excesses in check. In fact, some ICOs were only on the scene with no feasible roadmap for their announced blockchain inclined projects, thus leaving investors to nothing after their monies had been collected.
On another hand, the target activities of hackers on ICO projects was fast coming on a rise, and there were heightened concerns on the safety of investors’ funds, as well as protecting the intended projects whose continuity would be largely affected if the gathered funds are stolen.
These amongst other reasons, is why there have been increased calls for the need to set up ICO regulatory and monitoring structures that would see to it that ICO developing teams are held accountable and answerable to the investors and stakeholders who have put in their monies or some valuable efforts, one way or the other. There are recommendations from various quarters suggesting that a reasonable framework be set in place that determines how much online security has been incorporated by any ICO, before the investors start dropping the funds.
Contrasts between ICOs in 2017 and ICO 2018
Since the beginning of the year, there seem to be a number of adjusted traits that have consciously (or not), become requirements for ICO startups. The requirement gives some indications that the requirements have grown, and there is more to-do for ICO developers, if they must meet contemporary standards. Some of the obvious trends that were not so pronounced in the 2017 ICO era includes the following:
- Need for acknowledged blockchain technology experts
In order to have some assurance on the feasibility of intended blockchain project- that are sourcing for funds, the cryptocurrency community now seem to be more concerned about what members are on the development teams. This would help people match the team’s previous successes with what their expectations should be. Statistics show more investors putting their monies on ICO projects whose project team have had some good antecedence on the decentralized network, while it is even more tedious for the newcomers.
As a way of earning investors’ trust, some ICO projects especially those with members that are relatively new to the cryptocurrency scene, have began to employ the services of escrow agents. Escrow agents are individuals of proven track record on the cryptocurrency scene, who are able to command some respect on the digital currency arena. Although there are other responsibilities of the escrow agents, their subtle role of pulling investors to a project cannot be undermined. With these individuals on board, there could percentage rise in how much funds the project is able to raise.
- Increased recognition of ICO ratings
It seems stakeholders on the decentralized space have taken the use of ICO rating platforms more seriously. Unlike what it used to be, more digital currency concerned outfits have dedicated more time to analyzing every ICO project that is being announced. The intent is to examine and weigh all the surrounding factors before coming up with a calculated rating that would assist users in coming to a final decision on whether to invest or not. Prospective investors are now encouraged to put such ratings to consideration, as it could help prevent unguided investments that could later turn sour.
- Ongoing discussions and publicity about the tokens
Now, investors seem to be paying more attention only to the ICOs that have been able to pull reasonable discussions on various online forums. It feels more convenient investing in projects that have got lots of people engaged in positive talks, than those with little or no accompanying noise or publicity. This may be a reason why more cryptocurrency users and investors have flocked onto dedicated online discussion like foundico, reddit and numerous telegram channels where they can always access firsthand reliable information per time. The fundamental advantage derived from these platforms is the fact that, information obtained from the community members have shown high level accuracy over time
ICO 2018 are seeking out ways to block out the loopholes that were characteristics of the preceding events in 2017. The turn of events have also served as a wake-up call for investors to make sure all the indicators are sufficiently brought to bear on their investment decisions. If the seeming new rules are ardently followed, then we may see lesser people losing their funds, or investing in fake projects.