I have always thought the need for blockchain technical experts or ICO technical advisors is exaggerated, or even outrightly dropped, when a project is judged by that conditions, unless the project is actually seeking to create a brand new coin concept. For most ERC20 Bridal party and copycat coins, the real important consideration should be the Business Program behind the token and the managerial antecedents and executive profiles of the Team leaders.
As anyone involved in the industry ought to 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 specialized should no longer even be a huge deal for tokens anymore). The key needs to be the business plan; level of business experience; competence of the project leaders and the business marketing strategy of the primary company raising the funds.
Frankly, being an Legal professional and Business Consultant of over 30 years personally to several companies globally, We cannot I am unable to understand why people keeping looking for some Russian or Korean language or Chinese ‘Crypto Whiz’ or ‘Crypto Advisor’ to look for the strength of an ICO Race Lugano for what is basically a crowdfunding campaign for a BUSINESS CONCEPT…
I will be of the strong judgment that is one of the reasons why most ICOs never live up to their prelaunch hype. Within an era where there is an abundance of token creation software, platforms and freelancer, the disproportionate concentrate on the blockchain experience or technological ability of the promoters is mostly misplaced. It’s like trying to value the probable success of any company based on the ability of its staff to create a good website or app. That train left the station in the past with the proliferation of technical hands on article writing sites like Guru; Upwork, freelancer and even Fiverr.
People seemed too trapped up in the media hype and the technical qualifications of individuals promoting an ICO, particularly ERC20 Ethereum based tokens and then ponder why a technically superior Russian, Chinese or Korean language guy cannot deliver the business end of the company after the fundraising campaign.
Even a whole lot of our ICO Ranking companies seemed to set aside a disproportionate number of take into account crypto experience of team member, how many crypto advisors they have, and the ICO success experience they have on their team, rather than centering on the underlying business model to be created with the funds raised
As soon as 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 importance will shift from specialized angles, to the more relevant work of evaluating the business idea itself, and corporate business plan.
In a world driven by hype and FOMO Fear Of Lacking Out, it is starting to become clearer every day which a thorough crypto enthusiast must have a litmus test for picking a token to support in a world where genuine viable projects are hard to find and good projects with permanent prospects are actually harder to distinguish from money grabbing ‘shitcoins’.
With the recent developments where most new cryptos are hitting record lows, and new ICO Projects not residing up to their hypes after the Crowdsale, it is now common for disappointed ‘investors’ to go around blaming the ICO promoters on Social Media, rather than blame themselves because of not doing the proper due homework to select a most probable post-crowdsale winner before purchasing a token during its ICO.