Quote from: bitbunnny on September 02, 2019, 02:51:48 PM

In the flood of ICOs is really hard to tell which are worth investing. Sometimes is also hard to make a proper background check.
Even if it's not about scam majority of ICOs will not end well on the market so you will not make profit or it will be very little. That is why to my opinion ICOs are usually not worth time and money. Don't let greed to be your only motive.

Indeed. I tend to mostly agree with very few exceptions. Caveat Emptor rule always applies, but there is no standard way to evaluate / conduct due diligence.
Difficult to separate the marketing hype from the network value.

Team experience & profiles - Not a reliable indicator of project success
I've seen projects with teams of highly experience ppl and long resumes fail miserably while teams of humble no-names succeed and gain notoriety.
Having more tech ppl actually working full-time on the project does go a long-way.

Whitepaper - Does not represent anything other than a vision. Not to be relied for ROI purposes.

Corporate backing - Not a necessary guarantee of success, as many companies are keen to capitalize on marketing hype for stock valuation purposes or other

Clear use case - Most "clear" use cases today were only "obvious" in hindsight a few years afterwards.

The best projects are usually bland, boring stuff that takes time and effort to build, not very conductive to a media hype frenzy of revolutionizing/disrupting.
Think low-key projects raising low to medium amounts for a well-defined business-case.
Building stuff takes time, patience and hard work. Again, not rly aligned with pump&dump high-speculatory environment.

A project still alive and active after 2 years, with paying customers and revenue stream (from network, fees, etc) and a committed team.
That's the hallmark of success. That must come first so that the tokeneconomics fall in place.