Slashdot Mirror


Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: About 56 percent of crypto startups that raise money through token sales die within four months of their initial coin offerings. That's the finding of a Boston College study that analyzed the intensity of tweets from the startups' Twitter accounts to infer signs of life. The researchers determined that only 44.2 percent of startups survive after 120 days from the end of their ICOs. The researchers, Hugo Benedetti and Leonard Kostovetsky, examined 2,390 ICOs that were completed before May.

Acquiring coins in an ICO and selling them on the first day is the safest investment strategy, Kostovetsky said in a phone interview. But many individual investors can't participate in ICOs, so this option isn't open to them. Still, all investors should probably sell their coins within the first six months, the study found. "What we find is that once you go beyond three months, at most six months, they don't outperform other cryptocurrencies," Kostovetsky said. "The strongest return is actually in the first month."
The Boston College study also found that ICO returns are declining, as startups have becoming savvier about pricing coin offerings and more people have jumped into ICO investing. According to Bloomberg, "Returns of people who sold tokens on the first day they were listed on an exchange have been declining by four percentage points a month, Kostovetsky said."

101 comments

  1. "Halfo of ICOs die within four months..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you say "die within four months after an ICO"

    I don't think you understand what that acronym means.

    1. Re:"Halfo of ICOs die within four months..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand what that acronym means.

      die = decease in earnest.

      One word is missing from the summary and the comments below: Ponzi scheme.

    2. Re:"Halfo of ICOs die within four months..." by omnichad · · Score: 1

      An ICO is a short lived event by definition. It's the cryptocurrency that will live a few months after.

    3. Re:"Halfo of ICOs die within four months..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay literal man. Anyone not suffering from autism understood the meaning of then article title just fine.

    4. Re:"Halfo of ICOs die within four months..." by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what that acronym means.

      die = decease in earnest.

      There have long been too many Earnests in the world. I knew one and he was a total [REDACTED]!!!

  2. LOL by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    Who really buys this shit? It's like you just open your wallet and say "take it all please."

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but one of these new coins could be the next bitcoin! It's SMART to buy a few at the ICO. I have a very diversified crypto portfolio - that's also smart! I'm a smart guy.

    2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots. Aka your average bitcoin "enthusiast."

    3. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but one of these new coins could be the next bitcoin! It's SMART to buy a few at the ICO. I have a very diversified crypto portfolio - that's also smart! I'm a smart guy.

      And I'm sure a bovine excrement specialist carries many varieties in a diversified portfolio of fertilizer products, but at the end of the day, it's all just a big pile of bullshit.

    4. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely! I already have these bitcons and itâ(TM)s not like they can take them away after I generated them. Someday they will be worth something grand.

    5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who really buys this shit?

      Anyone who's recently had their shoes shined, of course!

    6. Re:LOL by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      This is the 2nd or 3rd time today I've seen somebody mention "creimer". Could somebody bring me into this loop that I'm way out of?

    7. Re:LOL by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Daytraders and idiots.

      The trick is to fleece the idiots, sociopathy helps.

    8. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it's one of those troll-references that seems witty to trolls, and irrelevant to anyone else.

    9. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a guy who wants you to pee in his butt

    10. Re:LOL by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Before investing, do your homework. Or suffer. There is no other successful investment system; unless, you're lucky. Well, do you feel lucky?

    11. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creimer cowardly proclaimed his loss and scuttered away as shown here:

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      " If it makes you feel better, YOU WON! Slashdot is all yours."

      Because of his several mental illnesses, he returned.

    12. Re:LOL by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The goal is to get in early and out on time. It's pretty much like the stock market, you pick one company and hope it does better before you sell out at peak performance.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is why creimer always talks about Stan Lee and pretends he wins all battles

      Hey there, people, I'm creimy brown
      They say I'm the cutest boy in town
      My car is fast, my teeth is shiney
      I tell all the girls they can kiss my heinie
      Here I am at a famous school
      I'm dressin sharp n I'm
      Actin cool
      I got a cheerleader here wants to help with my paper
      Let her do all the work n maybe later I'll rape her

      Oh God I am the american cream
      I do not think I'm too extreme
      An I'm a handsome sonofabitch
      I'm gonna get a good job n be real rich

      (get a good
      Get a good
      Get a good
      Get a good job)

      Womens liberation
      Came creepin across the nation
      I tell you people I was not ready
      When I fucked this dyke by the name of Stan Lee
      She made a little speech then,
      Aw, she tried to make me say when
      She had my balls in a vice, but she left the dick
      I guess it's still hooked on, but now it shoots too quick

      Oh God I am the american cream
      But now I smell like vaseline
      An I'm a miserable sonofabitch
      Am I a boy or a lady... I don't know which

      (I wonder wonder
      Wonder wonder)

      So I went out n bought me a leisure suit
      I jingle my change, but I'm still kinda cute
      Got a job doin video promo
      An none of the jocks can even tell I'm a homo
      Eventually me n a friend
      Sorta drifted along into s&m
      I can take about an hour on the tower of power
      Long as I gets a little golden shower

      Oh God I am the american cream
      With a spindle up my butt till it makes me scream
      An I'll do anything to get ahead
      I lay awake nights sayin, thank you, Stan!
      Oh god, oh god, I'm so fantastic!
      Thanks to Stan Lee, I'm a sexual spastic
      And my name is creimy brown
      Watch me now, I'm goin down,
      And my name is creimy brown
      Watch me now, I'm goin down, etc.

    14. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just some random fatty.

    15. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey now, don't be too hasty - if 56% die that means 44% survive and since I'm smarter than the average bear, I know that my investment will be in that 44% and I'm gonna be rich.

    16. Re:LOL by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The goal is to get in early and out on time. It's pretty much like the stock market, you pick one company and hope it does better before you sell out at peak performance.

      That is pretty much also the definition of winning in a Ponzi scheme.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:LOL by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's true, the difference is how the gains are distributed. If the gains funnel to the top regardless of risk, it's a Ponzi scheme. If the gains funnel to a random single person or very small group, then it's a gamble, if the gains (rewards) and losses (risks) are equally distributed according to the funds they put in the "pot" then it's an investment.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  3. Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Acquiring coins in an ICO and selling them on the first day is the safest investment strategy, ...

    That's not investing. Speculating, maybe. More like gambling.

    1. Re:Investment? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      With half of them dying in 4 months, it's basically playing rouge or noir.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Investment? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Acquiring coins in an ICO and selling them on the first day is the safest investment strategy, ...

      That's not investing. Speculating, maybe. More like gambling.

      Investing is gambling.

      Those who claim otherwise are trying to sell you a "sure thing", which only reinforces my point.

    3. Re:Investment? by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, investing isn't gambling, it's not black and white like that.

      There's more of a scale. At one end you have "gambling" and at the other you have "investing". At the far gambling end of the spectrum you have games of chance (e.g. roulette), binary options (which is gambling dressed up to look like investing), slot machines etc - basically all the types of things where the house always win. At the other end you have things like bonds, traditional long term buy and hold in blue chip companies etc. There's still some risk but on that end of the spectrum, it's not a zero sum game nor "the house always wins".

      If you say all investing is gambling because there's some risk and can never be a sure thing, then you get to the reductio ad absurdum argument that absolutely everything is gambling, e.g keeping your money in a savings account is also gambling because that's not a sure thing either.

    4. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do agree all investments are not gambling. But, since buying stocks is called investing, that is definitely is gambling.

    5. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Investing is not gambling, it is choosing to not spend money today in order to increase productivity (and spending ability) tomorrow. Speculation isn't even gambling - that involves transferring an existing risk to someone more capable of managing it (think farmers locking in the price of their crops, through investors purchasing commodity futures). Gambling is about creating financial risk out of thin air. No one actually stands to lose anything based on the order in which a bunch or horses cross a line (except maybe the time wasted watching said horses), nonetheless they choose to create financial risk for themselves by betting on which horse will cross first.

      By these definitions, I would classify ICOs as gambling - you are betting on the possibility that there are still greater fools in line behind you.

    6. Re: Investment? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      So, according to your definition BTC is not gambling since I keep winning year after year.

    7. Re:Investment? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      No, investing isn't gambling, it's not black and white like that.

      There's more of a scale. At one end you have "gambling" and at the other you have "investing". At the far gambling end of the spectrum you have games of chance (e.g. roulette), binary options (which is gambling dressed up to look like investing), slot machines etc - basically all the types of things where the house always win. At the other end you have things like bonds, traditional long term buy and hold in blue chip companies etc. There's still some risk but on that end of the spectrum, it's not a zero sum game nor "the house always wins".

      As you have stated, there are levels of risk. Any level above zero would be considered gambling, because you're wagering on an uncertain outcome. You can use many terms to describe it, but at the end of the day it's still rather black and white as to you accepting a risk with the potential outcome of losing your entire investment.

      And quite honestly, the "house" here would be considered Wall Street, and in the end they sure as hell aren't losing regardless of your performance or even your participation.

      If you say all investing is gambling because there's some risk and can never be a sure thing, then you get to the reductio ad absurdum argument that absolutely everything is gambling, e.g keeping your money in a savings account is also gambling because that's not a sure thing either.

      Yes, certain activities (like savings accounts) can essentially reduce the inherent risk down to near zero, but most would not consider savings accounts as primary investment vehicles. If you're looking for zero risk, then you're looking to insulate your wealth, not invest it. Perhaps the absurdity would be to attempt to not recognize and respect investments that include risk as gambling, because shit happens in any game of chance.

    8. Re:Investment? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Investing is not gambling, it is choosing to not spend money today in order to increase productivity (and spending ability) tomorrow. Speculation isn't even gambling - that involves transferring an existing risk to someone more capable of managing it (think farmers locking in the price of their crops, through investors purchasing commodity futures). Gambling is about creating financial risk out of thin air. No one actually stands to lose anything based on the order in which a bunch or horses cross a line (except maybe the time wasted watching said horses), nonetheless they choose to create financial risk for themselves by betting on which horse will cross first.

      By these definitions, I would classify ICOs as gambling - you are betting on the possibility that there are still greater fools in line behind you.

      Gambling is simply defined as an activity that involves wagering on an uncertain outcome. You can try and use many terms to describe the various levels of risk, but unless you reduce the risk down to zero and remove the possible outcome of losing your investment, it's called gambling.

      Nothing you have described above changes the fact that investing is gambling. It all still involves an element of chance. There's a chance you could win, and there's a chance you could lose. That pretty much describes Las Vegas too.

    9. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you could count cards in blackjack and achieve a 51% win rate mathematically would you consider that gambling or investing?

    10. Re:Investment? by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      You seem to be very determined to convince us that anything with an uncertain outcome is gambling. The problem is that everything has some element of risk. I could wake up tomorrow morning, slip on the tub and hit my head on the edge of the sink. So is it a gamble to get up in the morning? Where do we draw the line?

      The definitions of gambling that I see include terms like "high risk" and "games of chance". If everything is gambling then the term looses all meaning.

    11. Re:Investment? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You seem to be very determined to convince us that anything with an uncertain outcome is gambling. The problem is that everything has some element of risk. I could wake up tomorrow morning, slip on the tub and hit my head on the edge of the sink. So is it a gamble to get up in the morning? Where do we draw the line?

      Uh, you draw the line around this particular topic of financial investments, which is what we're discussing. Yes, everything in life is essentially a gamble, but let's keep the lines drawn where they logically should be. I've not escaped that logical border when I define any financial investment that involves risk as gambling, because it is. There is a chance that you could lose your entire financial investment. If you can afford to do that, then go for it. Gamble away. Take risks. If you can't afford to lose it all, then don't take the risk. It's that simple.

      The definitions of gambling that I see include terms like "high risk" and "games of chance". If everything is gambling then the term looses all meaning.

      Again, you're trying to drag this out of context. Within the realm of financial investments, there is almost always a risk. A chance of betting and losing it all. It's not merely ironic that we use these same exact terms to describe traditional "games of chance"; it's accurate. Whether you want to believe investing is gambling or not does not change the fact that risk is inherent, and losing everything is a possible outcome.

    12. Re:Investment? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If you could count cards in blackjack and achieve a 51% win rate mathematically would you consider that gambling or investing?

      If you've removed all inherent risk of losing your capital, then it is an investment. That said, not too many investments are actual investments with zero risk. A savings account is not an investment vehicle; it's a method of insulating an investment to protect it.

      As far as your scenario goes, you've manipulated the outcome to minimize the risk of losing everything, but at 51% it's still going to take you quite a long time for the game of chance to come up in your favor enough to call it an investment. That all gets down the semantics of your expected rate of return, and your chances of being allowed to play. Sometimes casinos decide when you stop winning...

    13. Re:Investment? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's not investing. Speculating, maybe. More like gambling.

      That's positively derptastic.

      Did you know that "speculative" is literally[sic] one of the enumerated risk levels in investing?

    14. Re:Investment? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You seem to be very determined to convince us that anything with an uncertain outcome is gambling.

      I think almost everybody else agrees on the meaning of the words, and they acknowledge that every time you get out of bed you're gambling that it is worth the risks involved, like slipping in the bath.

      Where you're expected to draw the line is based on the context of the sentence; if the context is investing, then you should probably be advised that investors casually use the word "gambling" to describe investments with unacceptable risk, but also that certainty is inversely proportionate to rewards, and high rewards are not considered automatically bad. The possibility of high rewards certainly doesn't preclude the activity from being considered investing!

    15. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The emphasis needs to be on "wager" not "uncertain"

      A wager is formatted "If X happens you play me Y, otehrwise I pay you Z".
      Investing is instead formatted "I'll pay you Z in exchange for Y now. If X happens that will turn out to have been a valuable transaction for me."

    16. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do agree all investments are not gambling. But, since buying stocks is called investing, that is definitely is gambling.

      You oversimplify things (as many people do). If I tell you a story and the story has only a hint of truth, then I'm telling the truth right? Stop being a black and white but be more specific.

    17. Re:Investment? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      As you have stated, there are levels of risk. Any level above zero would be considered gambling, because you're wagering on an uncertain outcome. You can use many terms to describe it, but at the end of the day it's still rather black and white as to you accepting a risk with the potential outcome of losing your entire investment.

      under that definition everything in life is gambling and the word investment doesn't exist. Even putting your money in a bank account or under your mattress is just gambling.
      With investments their is NOT always a winner and loser, both sides of the transaction can win, so no you are not playing against the house. investment is a weighted risk where the return outweighs the risk, gambling is hoping to get lucky and beat the odds/house.

    18. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've removed all inherent risk of losing your capital, then it is an investment.

      WRONG, an investment is where the risk is managed and the benefits outweigh the risks. you can NEVER remove all risk

      A savings account is not an investment vehicle; it's a method of insulating an investment to protect it.

      wrong. a savings account is also an investment, a very very low risk one but still an investment.

    19. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you've removed all inherent risk of losing your capital, then it is an investment.

      Stick to what you know about.

      If you have never heard of liquidity risk, counter-party credit risk, systemic risk, market risk etc you have no business trying to educate others about investing.

      The clue is in the name - putting (vesting) your hard-earned capital into some uncertain vehicle which you hope has a positive outcome, and nuance the structure according to your risk appetite across multiple dimensions.

    20. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Investing is not a weighted risk where the "return outweighs the risk".

      It is an assessment of your risk/return across some or all of the possible worlds you actually give a fuck about.

      In both cases you can calculate a present value taking into account what you know (which may or may not be the same as the "other side"), or not calculate at all.

      You may simply be looking for a hedge - not a return - more akin to insurance.

    21. Re:Investment? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Acquiring coins in an ICO and selling them on the first day is the safest investment strategy, ...

      That's not investing. Speculating, maybe. More like gambling.

      Investing is gambling.

      Those who claim otherwise are trying to sell you a "sure thing", which only reinforces my point.

      If you are sensible and have a reasonably large amount of money to start with (so you can think long term and live off your existing money in the short term) then investing is the exact opposite of gambling. Except in the short term, rich people get richer with no risk. All they have to do is not be greedy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:Investment? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      No you're not telling the truth.
      The truth isn't the truth if you leave out things. Such as important details. In some cases the law has a word for that, Fraud.

      There are no regulations for coin yet. So the fraudsters are out there. Pump & Dump, etc.

      Just look at the youtube videos. You don't want bitcoin, buy Tron. It's about to take off! It might blip a little. If that went up to $20,000 a coin, that would be great.

      In last year's bitcoin runup people were mortgaging their houses to buy bitcoin. My wife and I were thinking - that's nuts. Today it's a fraction of what it was and now they have a big mortgage note to pay, probably for decades.

      Famous one is politics. If you elect me your taxes won't go up. You elect him. Taxes go up because while they didn't raise your taxes, they raised your assessment on the property. An example of where they told the truth was the Republicans in the 1990s. Contract with America. They said if we elected them they'd get a balanced budget and they did. Unfortunately they also had term limits and they departed at the end of their term and Democrats took a lot of those seats and continued to screw things again. It was nice, we actually had a rebate on taxes. Well some of us did. The Democrats tried to hijack it all for the poor. In other words, give my refund to someone else who doesn't want to work. Probably an illegal alien.

    23. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Investing is not a weighted risk where the "return outweighs the risk".

      It is an assessment of your risk/return across some or all of the possible worlds you actually give a fuck about.

      In both cases you can calculate a present value taking into account what you know (which may or may not be the same as the "other side"), or not calculate at all.

      You may simply be looking for a hedge - not a return - more akin to insurance.

      You do realise you just described a Weighted risk. Perhaps you have some other definition of what a weighted risk is. a Hedge is a mechanism to reduce that risk in exchange for reduced return.

  4. So basically it's a scam ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Acquiring coins in an ICO and selling them on the first day is the safest investment strategy, Kostovetsky said in a phone interview. But many individual investors can't participate in ICOs, so this option isn't open to them. Still, all investors should probably sell their coins within the first six months, the study found. "What we find is that once you go beyond three months, at most six months, they don't outperform other cryptocurrencies," Kostovetsky said. "The strongest return is actually in the first month."

    In other words, ICOs are just bilking idiot investors out of their money as everyone gets entirely stupid and thinks that since it's cryptocurrency they're going to get rich.

    In some ways, this is no different from IPOs in that only the big investors on day 1 make any money and everyone else is left holding the bag ... but in this case you probably would have been better off if you weren't stupid enough to get in to begin with.

    Yawn, whatever, cryptocurrency is an over-hyped fad, but otherwise doesn't affect me. Go ahead, lose your shirt, I don't give a fuck, I think this is hilarious.

    Cryptocurrency has more exuberance than actual value, the faster people learn this the sooner I can stop hearing about it.

  5. Looking back at this time will be interesting. by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    It seems like whenever there's an economic expansion of any kind, people are desperate to put their money in anything regardless of the chance of success. This particular time will be very interesting to look back on, because you basically have multiple different bubbles all going on at the same time and they all feed on each other. I feel old, but I really don't see cryptocurrency as anything more than a scam.

    The mobile/app economy bubble is fed by the cloud bubble, which both feed the blockchain/cryptocurrency bubble, and all of them are sustained by The Cloud. Back in the 90s, if you wanted to sell bags of dogfood online and ship them for free to get eyeballs, getting started cost tons of money. You had to buy servers, colocate them in a data center, etc. and it cost millions to start up. Now, all you have to do is use the founder's credit card to buy AWS/Azure/GCP time and the money comes out much more slowly. This is why I think the bubble(s) are going to last a lot longer than the last one...there's way less pressure to IPO and topple the house of cards. Most of unicorn startups are being happily fed money by VCs rather than Grandma's pension fund buying into pets.com, and they need less every month.

    My worry is that allowing these bubbles to live longer than they should will make them huge and cause an even bigger mess when everything comes crashing in. Look at Silicon Valley housing markets as an example. I live near NYC, so I'm not one to point fingers at crazy housing prices. But if i wanted to move there for a job, a similar house to mine, a similar distance to work would be 4 or 5 times the price of my already-expensive one here in suburban NY. Yet, people are happily buying/renting so they can cash in on the gold rush...no thanks.

    1. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you see bubbles everywhere, then you might want to recalibrate your vision. It's true there are a lot of useless startups (as always), but the difference between now and 1997 is revenue. It's not just a black hole that money goes into, there is money coming back out.

      Good point that the cost of getting started is much lower now, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Honest, things have not so different since the invention of banking.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      If you see bubbles everywhere, then you might want to recalibrate your vision. It's true there are a lot of useless startups (as always), but the difference between now and 1997 is revenue. It's not just a black hole that money goes into, there is money coming back out. Good point that the cost of getting started is much lower now, though.

      All that revenue is coming from the big data and advertising bubbles. Those will eventually pop as well.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, the advertising bubble will not pop. That money has been coming in for a hundred years, and it will keep coming. As TV dies, more and more will come.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      No, the advertising bubble will not pop. That money has been coming in for a hundred years, and it will keep coming. As TV dies, more and more will come.

      Advertising will always be there, but the idea that companies are worth millions or billions of dollars through monetizing their users (selling their data and their eyeballs) won't last. Eventually the curtain will get pulled back and reveal the sham that it really is. When was the last time anyone ever saw a relevant ad? The closest you get is when you buy something online then see adds everywhere online for that and similar products for the next week. Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.

      No, I can see you've never worked with advertisers. Advertisers are very data driven. They always want to know how well their advertising campaigns have worked, and how much sales they've gotten from their advertising. If something isn't working, they stop doing it quickly because that's money wasted.

      tl;dr internet advertising works, that's why it is still here.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.

      No, I can see you've never worked with advertisers. Advertisers are very data driven. They always want to know how well their advertising campaigns have worked, and how much sales they've gotten from their advertising. If something isn't working, they stop doing it quickly because that's money wasted.

      tl;dr internet advertising works, that's why it is still here.

      I think the point being made isn't that internet advertising will cease to be relevant. Instead, that at some point, companies will start to look behind the curtain. They might like the deeper analytics that exists now vs. when they had little more than Nielsen ratings and newspaper circulation numbers to go on, but the question is whether advertising companies (e.g. Google and Facebook) can continue charging as much money as they are for the ads. All the analytics in the world won't justify the investments in online advertising if those ads don't ultimately turn into increased revenue for the company buying them. Once enough companies fail to get a good ROI on internet ads, it doesn't mean they won't continue to buy them, it means they won't be willing to pay as much for them. You are correct that internet advertising isn't going away, but the multibillion dollar valuation of Google and Facebook is subject to whether or not their revenue is sustained...and unlike Microsoft who still sells licenses to Windows and SQL Server, or Amazon who can stop all advertising tomorrow and still be sustainable by selling books and diapers and computing time, Google can't sustain itself very long by selling G-Suite, and Facebook doesn't even have something like that to fall back on.

      tl;dr: ads won't go away, but the companies whose balance sheets fail with ad revenue being cut in half are going to be in trouble.

    8. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      It seems like whenever there's an economic expansion of any kind, people are desperate to put their money in anything regardless of the chance of success. This particular time will be very interesting to look back on, because you basically have multiple different bubbles all going on at the same time and they all feed on each other. I feel old, but I really don't see cryptocurrency as anything more than a scam.

      Bubbles are what you get when you have too many investment dollars chasing too few good investment opportunities. It's a sign that the economic system is tilted too much in favor of capital vs. labor. .

    9. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Eventually the companies purchasing these ads will realize that this is all wasted money and the algorithms don't work.

      No, I can see you've never worked with advertisers. Advertisers are very data driven. They always want to know how well their advertising campaigns have worked, and how much sales they've gotten from their advertising. If something isn't working, they stop doing it quickly because that's money wasted.

      tl;dr internet advertising works, that's why it is still here.

      I think the point being made isn't that internet advertising will cease to be relevant. Instead, that at some point, companies will start to look behind the curtain. They might like the deeper analytics that exists now vs. when they had little more than Nielsen ratings and newspaper circulation numbers to go on, but the question is whether advertising companies (e.g. Google and Facebook) can continue charging as much money as they are for the ads. All the analytics in the world won't justify the investments in online advertising if those ads don't ultimately turn into increased revenue for the company buying them. Once enough companies fail to get a good ROI on internet ads, it doesn't mean they won't continue to buy them, it means they won't be willing to pay as much for them. You are correct that internet advertising isn't going away, but the multibillion dollar valuation of Google and Facebook is subject to whether or not their revenue is sustained...and unlike Microsoft who still sells licenses to Windows and SQL Server, or Amazon who can stop all advertising tomorrow and still be sustainable by selling books and diapers and computing time, Google can't sustain itself very long by selling G-Suite, and Facebook doesn't even have something like that to fall back on.

      tl;dr: ads won't go away, but the companies whose balance sheets fail with ad revenue being cut in half are going to be in trouble.

      Well said. And don't forget, the job of advertisers is to sell people things they don't want and/or need. And the thing they have to sell above all else is themselves.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there are extreme bubbles elsewhere in the economy, and eventually, we are going to have another debt caused liquidity crisis. Google the everything bubble. Our debt levels are significantly higher than they were during the crisis in 2007-2009. Corporations have 50% more debt than 10 years ago when we were told that certain businesses were 'too big to fail', largely from taking on additional debt to buy stock to drive up the stock price. The federal debt has tripled.

      The low mortgage rates have had a significantly inflationary impact on real estate values. Increasing the interest rates for 30 year mortgages from 3.5% to 5% and $1000 payment will drop the amount of loan you get from 222,000 to 186,000, a decrease of 36%). Since most people don't have that money in the bank to increase their down payment to buy the same house, housing prices are going to have to decrease again causing a second real estate mortgage problem.

      The federal reserve pumped $3.5 trillion into the markets to keep things afloat, and is now attempting to withdraw those values from the market. I don't know how they can claim that the $3.5 trillion saved the market, but that withdrawing an even larger amount now will be done without causing the next crisis.

      The stock market crash of 1929 (and all of the spectacular ones really) have been caused largely by margin calls forcing people who had borrowed money and bought securities to sell them at a loss, and the sell will drive the price down, forcing other speculators to down to where they were below water, then their brokerage would force them to sell, driving down the price further, causing a cascading collapse of stock prices to about a 90% decline. The amount of debt supporting this stock market is significantly higher than then. Look at the chart on this page. All that is supporting this market is debt. Stock markets at current valuations typically have negative returns over the following decade, because the price is too high and the cash flows are too low.

      Once people stop having enough debt to maintain their life style, home and investing activities, health care costs, etc, something is going to have to give, and corporate revenue and profits will take a hit and the market will crash hard. Companies are going to go out of business. People will lose jobs. The economy will shrink as more and more people lose their jobs causing other closures from loss of customers, loss of tax revenues, etc.

    11. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A hundred years ago most business people still thought that advertising meant informing potential customers about the availability of an offering, though.

    12. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      All the analytics in the world won't justify the investments in online advertising if those ads don't ultimately turn into increased revenue for the company buying them. Once enough companies fail to get a good ROI on internet ads

      Advertisers are always checking to make sure they get a good ROI. It's not something they will start doing, it's something they have been doing for decades. The answer is they do get a good ROI. So that's it. Advertisers pay a lot for ads because it works.

      And I say that as someone who wishes advertising would go away: it is the bane of the internet.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Looking back at this time will be interesting. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know how they can claim that the $3.5 trillion saved the market, but that withdrawing an even larger amount now will be done without causing the next crisis.

      Maybe you should find out before predicting the future. It's not like the fed has kept the answers a secret, you could go find out if you weren't so busy with your conspiracy theories.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    "About 56 percent of crypto startups that raise money through token sales die within four months of their initial coin offerings."

    Yeah, and 80 - 90% of start-ups die within the first 12 months, which leaves the obvious question; Are ICOs nothing more than scams, or is a four-month death essentially expected in this particular type of business?

    Perhaps it's a bit early to really tell, but it's rather ironic that ICOs seem to have a success rate on par with damn near any other type of start-up (if not better), and yet we're questioning that activity worse than Al Capones tax auditor. All forms of investing are gambling at the end of the day.

    1. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends how you define success. If success means simply keeping afloat, then some crypto currencies are indeed successful. If success means solving a problem, filling a need, or replacing an obsolete solution, then no crypto currency is yet successful.

    2. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If success means solving a problem, filling a need, or replacing an obsolete solution, then no crypto currency is yet successful.

      You don't feel crypto currency fills a need for secure anonymous transactions? I would question why any government is still printing cash then.

    3. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by omnichad · · Score: 2

      These aren't new businesses or business models. They bring nothing to the table, have no value proposition. They only exist to fuel speculation. Most startups at least try to do something. An additional coin is just something to throw money at and lose.

    4. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are sort of comparing apples to oranges there. First, startups generally don't just come right out of the gate asking investors for huge money. They generally develop SOMETHING on the founders dime, then shop that early prototype around to investors. The early investors are very few. They vet the startup, asking detailed questions about strategy. And they generally get some say into the direction of the startup. As the startup continues to grow, they bring in more investors over time. It's generally only after the company has has some measure of success that they get to the stage of a public offering and bring in lots of investors who really get little say into the company.

      ICO, on the other hand, are generally creating absolutely nothing. They piggyback their ICO on some existing cryptocurrency system and just ask for tons of money for some idea. Lots of people jump on board, but they have little info about what the plan is, they don't have detailed one-on-one vetting sessions, and they are one of many such investors and have little to no say in the direction or strategy of the startup.

      Those are 2 very different processes, and not even the slightest bit comparable in my mind. But furthermore, if you actually read the details of the paper, and see the way they are determining "failure" this isn't just a "the company has tried and failed after 4 months" thing. This is a "the whole thing has been abandoned and the founders just seem to have disappeared" thing. It's one thing for a company to try and fail. But when the founders just quietly disappear, that's not a failure...that's a successfully executed scam.

    5. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because cash is accepted pretty much everywhere (with very very very few exceptions). Because cash works in an emergency, when the power is out or during some natural disaster.

    6. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These cryptocurrency coins have little utility. BitCoins sole use is to monetize the black market. Ethereum has something about doing data processing as part of mining.

      Everything else is a complete scam, though. You might as well just buy arcade tokens for all the good they'll do you.

    7. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In my country cash transactions are not anonymous, the seller is legally required to provide a receipt, and to disclose either their legal name, the name of the legal entity they are representing, or a registered business name.

      Also, cryptocurriencies don't offer anonymity; all transactions are recorded for posterity! Just because the people most in need of short-term monetary transfer are conducting illegal activities, and illegal activities benefit from anonymity, that doesn't tell you that cryptocurrencies provide anonymity; it only tells you that criminals are successfully able to create false identities that meet the requirements of the medium.

      If it is true that there is a "need" for anonymous transactions, then it is still a blue sky over a green field! But it might also be that it isn't a need at all, but that preventing it is considered a governmental need, and if you offer a product or service that actually anonymizes transactions you'll just go to jail for money laundering.

    8. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crypto currencies are neither secure nor anonymous so they fail at filling those needs regardless of whether/why those needs exists.

      Also cash fulfills the need to fulfilling transactions when infrastructure is unavailable or unreliable, it's not about anominity or security.

    9. Re:Scam vs. Life Expectancy. by Desler · · Score: 1

      You don't feel crypto currency fills a need for secure anonymous transactions?

      No. Especially when cryptocurrency users can be deanonymized.

      I would question why any government is still printing cash then.

      Cash is only "anonymous" if you ignore the fact that you are being monitored on video at most businesses when you use it. Also, governments have never printed cash because they wanted to provide anonymity b

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I regret that I didn't mine bitcoin back in 2010, and I regret that I didn't have the foresight to do an ICO last year. Oh well, I guess there are better ways to make money than fraud.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope

    2. Re:wow by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You can still easily get something like Reddcoin simply by running a wallet on your computer. It's not proof-of-work so it won't tax your CPU at all.

      Reddcoins aren't worth much now, but like Bitcoin maybe you'll regret not mining for Reddcoins ten years from now.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:wow by eric31415927 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many coins were generated back in 2010 by students on university servers (with the universities getting no cut). Of course back then the coins were considered next to worthless so maybe it was not a great loss to the universities - just some extra power expenses.

    4. Re:wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah. There is always another chance to get rich. Right now, at this moment, there is a stock I could buy, that would make me rich by next week. The trick is figuring out which one, but instead of whining about the past, I'd be better off figuring out how to recognize that stock.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It didn't take much power to generate coins back then, either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many coins were generated back in 2010 by students on university servers (with the universities getting no cut). Of course back then the coins were considered next to worthless so maybe it was not a great loss to the universities - just some extra power expenses.

      I wonder just how many of those coins were lost forever due to people not backing up wallets properly or forgetting passphrases because at the time they were just about worthless. The main people who got lucky in the bubble were the packrats who still could find their old stocks of coins that suddenly were worth real money.

    7. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was first reading up on bitcoin when it's value was in the pennies. I thought it was stupid then. Do I regret no mining it back then? After all I'd be a millionaire (if not billionair) now, right? Absolutely not. It wouldn't have got that far. I might have mined a few hundred coins, who knows. But then I probably would have lost my key some point along the line. If I didn't lose my key, it probably would've been because I decided a well known, trusted, and reliable place like Mt Gox was the safest way to go. If somehow I managed to dodge both of those bullets, I would have sold them when they reached the ridiculous price of $1, or maybe even $5. I certainly couldn't imagine I would have held them past the insane $10 valuation, but if somehow I did I would have been a moron not to sell them at $100.

      So if I didn't make $0, realistically I'd probably have made $100s of dollars, maybe $1000s, a slim chance it would be in the $10k+ range. The only way It would've ever made it to the millionaire stage is if I were in a coma all that time, or I lost my keys, couldn't sell at all those times, and just finally somehow stumbled across my keys in the last year.

    8. Re:wow by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      If you had mined BTC in 2010, today you would probably regret having sold them in 2013.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:wow by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Reddcoin is positioning itself as the social media currency. If they are successful, its value will easily go up. Probably not $1000 per coin, but $1 to $5 is not impossible.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    10. Re:wow by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I regret it whenever a maladaptive thought pops into my head like, "gosh I wish I had mined bitcoins in 2010!"

      It happens to everybody. When it happens to me, I try to replace the thought with two others: The legit opportunity I missed was not cashing in on COBOL programming during Y2K. That one I saw coming, it was clearly real, and I decided to do "real work" instead.

      The other thought is, most of blockchain's utility is not in cryptocoins, and the future of digital currency is also probably not in cryptocoins. There is still a giant green field, with real use cases that are yet unserved. I'm not letting it pass me by the way I let Y2K pass by! But I'm not going to tilt at cryptowindmills, either.

    11. Re:wow by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It might be that the system of finding that stock ends up having a higher average cost than just throwing a dart at a dartboard.

      Picturing a get-rich-quick stock is exactly the same mental process as dreaming about winning the lottery. And as with the lottery, there are people trying to invent systems to predict things better than anybody else, even though if they succeeded the system would be altered to prevent its utility!

    12. Re:wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There are strategies for divesting of this kind of speculative stuff. A normal way is, when the price goes up, sell part of it.

      That's what I would have done: I would have sold some of my bitcoins to guarantee a profit, and kept some of them to take advantage if the price continued to go up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Reddcoin is positioning itself as the social media currency.

      I don't even know what that means.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The other thought is, most of blockchain's utility is not in cryptocoins, and the future of digital currency is also probably not in cryptocoins. There is still a giant green field, with real use cases that are yet unserved

      I haven't seen a single other usecase, though.

      Blockchain is basically a slow database to be used when you don't trust anybody to keep the database. That sort of use case isn't very common.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It might be that the system of finding that stock ends up having a higher average cost than just throwing a dart at a dartboard.

      That might be true. Clearly there are systems that work, otherwise high-speed trading wouldn't be so profitable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:wow by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      They're working on making their wallets, APIs and everything easy to connect and use, for Facebook, Twitter, etc. If they succeed in getting people on board, Reddcoin will essentially become the true "Internet money" used for micro-transactions.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  9. So, they're just like any other Tech IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they're just like almost any other Tech IPO - sell while the FOMO is strong.

  10. miner miner forty-niner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Yes I do. Just Say No to kryptokurrency.
    1849. Live the dream. Again.

  11. No ICO scams with APKoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Subject: APKoin is better than all other cyypto coin guarantee to not loose value

    Get APKoin by spreading the word of "LORD of HOSTS" to all conrners of teh internet

    Get APKoin by "Kick stomping heart" FAKE SoyBOY slashdot l[users] who dare defy brilliant APK

    Redeemable for ultra premium moose dik you can suck or take in ass

    Premium rewards like suk my MEGA MAN PENIS or lick my gaint ballz

    APK

    P.S.=> The Soros and ROTHSCHILD backed jew bankers want to destroy CRYPTO COIN because it can derail their plans to enslave great american worker. Trump was the first major disruption to they plans APKoins is the next... apk

  12. Crypto-sporidium by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Crypto-sporidium Can be fatal

    1. Re:Crypto-sporidium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, I invested all my money in cryptozoology since everyone kept saying that crypto was going to be huge! Then the market for exotic, mythological creatures dropped out. Anyone want to buy a bigfoot? :-(

  13. they take this long??? by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    They take this long to die??? Something's wrong here and I'll give anyone a million Stanley Nickels to tell me what it is.

  14. Let me explain this by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Here, let me explain ICOs to non-crypto specialists. It's Kickstarter but with less accountability.

  15. Impersonating me AGAIN?... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: "Imitation=sincerest form of flattery" PROVING u WISH u were ME & poor imitation = u.

    * I don't post on hosts in topics that don't fit it (unless you of "moron kind" bring it up 1st)

    (Hence, you give yourself away you're impersonating me!)

    APK

    P.S.=> What are you trying (& failing) to accomplish? Trying to "make me look bad"?? I have to ask as it's EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for me to "think like 'your kind'" (no-mind do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-wells" that can't think, lol) to even TRY to understand your "mental processes" (none obviously that are up to any good)... apk

  16. Investors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Investors, You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means