The statistics could no longer be ignored. Most ICOs tank, and stay tanked, once the tokens get to the crypto exchanges, after the frenzy and ‘FOMO’ attending the crowdsale is over.

Most watchers keeping track of the ICO phenomenon universally agree that the trend in the last few months has been for ICOs to lose value post-crowdsale, with many buyers waiting in vain for the ‘moon’ they were promised, once the cryptocurrency hits an exchange portal 보맥스.

What is however not being discussed is the principal reason why we are witnessing this phenomenon, and what participants in a crowdsale, including the rating companies most of us rely on to make a choice, must be doing wrong in picking which ICO have most value, or has the best probability of rising in value once the crowdsale is over.

While there are a lot of reasons one could legitimately proffer for the phenomenon, there is one fact that I think is probably more responsible for this than most other contending reasons: ICO token valuation and the misplaced emphasis on ‘blockchain experts’, ‘ICO advisors’ or ‘technical whizkids’ for erc20 tokens.

I have always thought the need for blockchain technical experts or ICO technical advisors is exaggerated, or even outrightly misplaced, when a project is judged by that criteria, unless the project is actually trying to create a brand new coin concept. For most ERC20 Tokens and copycat coins, the real important consideration should be the Business Plan behind the token and the managerial antecedents and executive profiles of the Team leaders.

As anyone involved in the industry should know, creating an ERC20 token from Ethereum, or similar tokens from other cryptocurrencies, does not take any great technical skill or require any overrated blockchain advisor (as a matter of fact, with new software out there, an ERC20 Token can be done in less than 10minutes by a complete technical newbie.