Quote from: sockpuppet1911 on September 25, 2017, 07:07:28 PM

Quote from: SilentNightElf on September 25, 2017, 12:08:02 PM

Quote from: Voltaje on September 24, 2017, 03:21:45 AM

Quote from: SilentNightElf on September 24, 2017, 02:15:56 AM

Quote from: toolucky98 on September 23, 2017, 06:51:39 PM

Quote from: mikhael on September 23, 2017, 01:56:45 PM

With or without celebrity involved in an ICO, if the managing team behind knows how to market their own project no doubt it will easily funded. Previous ICOs like Tezos, NEO and OmiseGO were never endorsed by any celebrity but all them have a very successful crowdfunding campaign.

Celebrities involved in an ICO are a plus.
However, this is better than without any celebrities involved.

celebrities just bring in speculative short term investors, not real investors that hodl

Celebrities won't make experience investors buy more, that is only for the common people, or the ones that like said celebrity, there are always people that will invest only in it, so why not have them? it won't damage the project, jut doesn't put a bad one, that can be really shameful.

because it just brings in more weak hands, more volatility, and less stability

Where are you getting this from? Crypto noobs tend to be bag holders, not ico flippers or daytraders, why would they sell right away? If they bought it because their favorite celebrity advertised it, i think they want to hold until that celebrity chances his/her mind.

I agree on the noobs, however there are a lot of whales who bought at the pre-ico, and they generally buy for flipping purposes.