The word “like” has a totally different meaning than it did ten years ago. For many today it is a mere feel good feeling encouraged by social media: a quick button, which can be quickly negated, lost amongst the likes that follow. To “like” is to simply admit that you are a follower amongst maybe 500 other “friends” out there who share the same fleeting emotion. The result is that “like” is a word which has become less meaningful and is often accompanied by “really like” or “I love it” or even when referring to a person, it is reinforced by a justification as to why.
As many of you are aware a well- known methodology of marketing today is based on the “know, like, trust” principle. In a way it is a three level cross check process to reassure any doubts we may have. Something indeed has changed in our evaluation process and it is undoubtedly clear that the inner confidence in our own judgement is no longer the same. Spurred on by globalism and the jungle that the connected world can present to us, we need to refer.
So why am I dwelling upon this for an article about ICOs? Probably because believing in the right ones to back is a daunting task. By the sheer volume of ICOs out there and the saturation of “marketing speak” that accompany them, the feel-good needs more than ever that confirmation of trust. It is now instinctive in internet behaviour to cross-checked our doubts when looking for an answer on the web. Inevitably we scour the SERPS for the majority answer to be quite sure that we can trust that it is correct. The approach to the virtual ICO jungle which we wade through should be no exception to this.
Liking an ICO is easy. When reading about an ICO which has a persuasive description and a concept which sounds workable, one is easily drawn to like it and often seduced to buy. Getting to know about is just as simple because ICOs are always accompanied by glossy white papers and often striking websites. However, trusting its authenticity, such as ICOs like Productivist, is equally important for the shrewd investor. We read every day about promising ICOs but the last step in the investment process is undoubtedly authenticity.
A good indicator to a promising ICO, (besides looking at its scoring), is knowing who backs them or indeed those articles which endorse them. In the case of the ICO Productivist these are manifold. Positive articles can be found on an endless list such as Coin telegraph, Hackernoon or News BTC. Such a proliferation of praise can only increase confidence. Furthermore, this ICO shows a certain amount of a transparency by making these articles easily accessible with direct links to these sites.
Another element which heightens an ICO’s authenticity is whether it favours the KYC process. This being “know your client.” KYC is a buzzword. For those who don’t know this is the process of verifying your investor and ensuring that their interest in not for just pure money laundering purposes. The SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) have been highly interested in this procedure (compulsory for IPOs) with regards to ICOs and it is clear that those ICOs, like Productivist, who adopt this protocol demonstrate a responsible approach which could be argued as indicative of their legitimacy.
The SEC have voiced concern over the past year for many issues with regards to the ICO process and have illustrated many other pointers to spotting a dud ICO. So much was their interest that in May of this year, they launched a fake ICO to show investors how easy it can be to get scammed. The scam ICO website included several obvious red flags such as accepting credit card payments and guaranteeing returns. In other words pure tactics to encourage that feel-good “like” and consequent purchase. For those who were duped all the way, they discovered their error only at the stage of clicking the “buy tokens” button. This link then directed them to an article on the SEC’s website about fraudulent ICOs. Fortunately they were this time lucky enough to avoid a bad buy.
A final validation of an ICO’s weight is to look into its past. Linkedin is certainly useful for this. Questions to pose would be what did the ICO team do before? Has their work been endorsed and if so what were their achievements? Although this evaluation is limiting as it could be viewed as “self-marketing” it is always useful to see a “historic” which maps out the number of years work experience each team member has and the connections he or she has within their ICOs targeted industry . Interestingly for ICO’s like Productivist, we experience an additional trust factor because you will find that their team had cohesion already. A high majority of their team have worked within the same company prior to Productivist (see Freelabster). On investigation this company is a rising star of its industry and has experience with working successfully with big industry names. What could be more positive? Furthermore it is easily consultable on the web. This is a plus for Productivist although they are certainly not unique.
So the message is probably by now clear: knowing and liking are simply just not enough. A likeable ICO needs to be one that also exudes “trust”. What we, as potential investors have to do is pull apart that jungle of marketing speak and peel down to those simple indicators which are, with experience, often staring us in the face.