Initial Coin Offering (ICO) evaluation model
-
Author(s)Sebastian LahajnarLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4604-5223
,
Alenka RožanecLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3258-0543
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(4).2018.14
-
Article InfoVolume 15 2018, Issue #4, pp. 169-182
- Cited by
- 2701 Views
-
1466 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
High-tech companies operating in the field of blockchain technology use the Initial Coin Offering (ICO) to raise start-up capital. It is a fairly new, non-standardized and poorly regulated way of collecting start-up funding that can bring high yields to investors in the short term, but investors also have to be ready to take on high risks. The purpose of this article is to define a decision model for the evaluation of ICO projects, which provides a systematic, transparent, methodological approach to making decisions on investing in them. For that purpose, the authors analyzed a number of factors, which directly or indirectly influence the successful implementation of ICO projects, and the researchers extracted the most important among them (model parameters). In order to build the decision model, used a qualitative method for the hierarchical multi-parameter evaluation of DEX, which using symbolic parameters and combining functions in the form of if-then rules ensures the most freely and flexible combining assessment parameters into a uniform model. In the article, the use of proposed decision model was tested in practice on multiple ICO processes. The article details the decision-making process in the case of CargoX, and also summarizes the results of the evaluation of ICOs Tokens.net, BitClave, Neuromation and WePower.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G11
-
References43
-
Tables4
-
Figures4
-
- Figure 1. Model for evaluation of ICO projects
- Figure 2. Part of the table of the decision rules of the parameter ICO project evaluation – three dimensions
- Figure 3. Results of the evaluation of the ICOs Cargox, Tokens, BitClave, Neuromation and WePower
- Figure 4. Comparison of CXO, DTR, CAT, NTK, WPR indices against BTC after six months of the ICOs processes implementation
-
- Table 1. Dimension “The company”
- Table 2. Dimension “The project strategy”
- Table 3. Dimension “The project implementation”
- Table 4. Dimension “The product”
-
- Adhami, S., Giudici, G., & Martinazzi, S. (2017). Why do businesses go crypto? An empirical analysis of initial coin offerings. Journal of Economics & Business (Forthcoming).
- Ahlers, G. et al. (2017). Signaling in Equity Crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955-980.
- Balina, I. (2017). Ian Balina’s ICO Report V4.6.
- Bitclave (2018). BitClave: Decentralizes Search Ecosystem.
- Bohanec, M., & Rajkovič, V. (1990). DEX: an expert system shell for decision support. Sistemica (Lima), 1, 145-157.
- Bohanec, M., Rajkovič, V., Bratko, I., Zupan, B., & Žnidaršič, M. (2013). DEX methodology: Three decades of qualitative multiattribute modelling. Informatica, 37, 49-54.
- Bohanec, M. (2014). Odločanje in modeli. Ljubljana: DMFA Založništvo.
- CargoX (2017). Reshaping the Future of Global Trade with the World’s First Blockchain Bill of Lading.
- CoinFollow (2018). Rating Methodology.
- CoinGecko (2018). ICO Score Methodology.
- Cointelegraph (2018). How To Choose An ICO To Invest In.
- Cryptorated (2018). ICO Rating System.
- Cryptosrus (2017). Due Diligence: How To Evaluate an ICO (Initial Coin Offering).
- Hall, J., & Hofer, C. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 25-42.
- Howard, M. (2018). The ICO Is Dead. Long Live the ICO 2.0.
- IcoBazzar (2018). ICO bazaar rating system.
- Icobench (2018). Rating Methodology.
- Icocrowd (2017). Key Points for Evaluating ICO Investments.
- IcoGuru (2018). Rating Methodology.
- Icomarketdata (2018). ICO Rating Methodology.
- Icorating (2018). Project evaluation.
- Icowatchlist (2018). How to evaluate an ICO?
- InvestItIn (2017). The Pros And Cons Of Investing In ICOs.
- Investopedia (2018). Initial Coin Offering (ICO).
- Kuznecov, N. (2018). 4-step guide to evaluating the mad world of ICOs.
- Medium (2017). The Truth About ICO: Pros&Cons.
- Morris, K. (2018). How to Evaluate an ICO.
- Mulders, M. (2018). 10 keys for evaluating Initial Coin Offering (ICO) investments.
- Neuromation (2018). Neuromation White Paper V3.2.
- News.bitcoin.com (2017). 46% of Last Year’s ICOs Have Failed Already.
- Rhodes, D. (2018). Why are So Many ICOs Failing?
- Rosic, A. (2017). Why Most ICO’s Will Fail: A Cold Hard Truth.
- Sharma, A. (2018). 4 Primary Reasons Why ICOs Fail.
- Shin, L. (2017). Here’s The Man Who Created ICOs And This Is The New Token He’s Backing.
- Stanley, B. (2018). 7 tips on how to assess ICO projects and make smart investment decisions.
- Steemit (2017). Pros and Cons of ICO’s (Must read if you’re investing in ICO).
- Steemit (2017a). How to Evaluate a Blockchain ICO.
- Token Metrics (2018). Token Metrics ICO rating methodology V2.0.
- Tokens.net (2017). Dynamic Trading Rights (DTR)-Whitepaper.
- Van den Ende, A. C. (2017). How ICO’s are being rated and how to evaluate a token yourself.
- WePower (2018). WePower White Paper.
- Willett, J. R. (2012). The Second Bitcoin Whitepaper.
- Yadav, M. (2017). Exploring signals for investing in an initial coin offering (ico). SSRN Electronic Journal.
-
Management decisions regarding innovative projects at their early stages of development: An example of a methodology for assessing crypto projects
Vladyslav Mandryka ,
Kateryna Mandryka ,
Alona Yevdokymova ,
Oleksandr Matsenko ,
Leonid Melnyk
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.21(4).2023.25
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 21, 2023 Issue #4 pp. 316-333 Views: 387 Downloads: 104 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯInnovative projects can be very costly, and making mistakes in their implementation can be expensive for organizations and investors. Therefore, appropriate procedures are needed to minimize the likelihood of such errors, facilitate strategic decision-making, and optimize investments. This paper presents a methodology for assessing the viability and potential of cryptocurrency and blockchain projects based on evaluating individual project components and synthesizing these assessments.
The proposed approach suggests considering a project as a collection of individual components with clear metrics that can be assessed; various assessments of these metrics are introduced. As a result, a project manager or investor assigns ratings to its metrics when analyzing several projects and then calculates a final assessment for each project. A project manager can determine the most promising project by comparing the reviews of several projects.
This methodology stands out for its simplicity and clarity, and a significant advantage is its reliance on only publicly available data. This approach can be applied as the first step in making investment decisions regarding a specific project when working with investment funds or launchpads, for example.Acknowledgment
The paper is prepared within the scientific research project “Fundamentals of the phase transition to the additive economy: From disruptive technologies to institutional socialization of decisions” (№ 0121U109557), funded by the general fund of the state budget of Ukraine.
