@Viennablues, it is very refreshing to read a negative review of an ICO, particularly when it is clear you have done your homwork properly. There are lots of reviews touting various current ICOs as great investments, when it is obvious that the posters haven't read the white paper. Some of them are suspected to be written by paid promoters because they are too carefully worded. I have also noticed that some ICOs reserve part of the token issue to be given away free to those who write positive articles on social media. I wonder if there are any laws being broken by doing that?

Lots of people get upset when told their ICO isn't that good. There is a lot of vested interest in getting it away.

I wrote an article about a particular ICO that I think is not attractive.

https://steemit.com/ico/@swissclive/initial-coin-offerings-often-you-are-buying-thin-air-i-e-nothing-at-all

I made some (helpful) comments on steemit to the blogs of people who were touting it as a great investment. I pointed out some of the problems (limited utility value, large issue size, and a business plan that relied on selling more tokens for the next 4 years). This upset some who had presumably already invested.

My assessment is that very few ICOs are designed to have monetary value. Most are not linked to the success of the company, or its profits, and have no voting or influece on the company. As for utility value of the tokens, most are rather contrived. In other words, there is almost none, and the token being issued was never necessary, as any crypto or even fiat would do equally well.

Another interesting feature of some ICOs, is that they mention an army of well known and respected advisors, or senior employees with prestigeous CVs and track records. Yet when you visit the social media pages like Facebook or Linkedin of the advisors, they don't mention their affiliation with company, or if they do, it is in the context of a long list.