What is your Opinion about IEO- Is it effective form of fundraising! or not?

[masterrex]

Lately crypto projects that was using Initial Coin Offering (ICO) as a primary tool for fundraising are just slowly fading way. or just decreasing in numbers, Most of the projects are migrated into the new form or tool for raising funds through the "Initial Exchange Offering" (IEO) in your opinion is (IEO) was working Better compare to the traditional ICO? in terms of effectivity what grade you can give to the IEO in the scale of 1 - 10?

[Coin63@]

ICO means initial coins offering and IEO means initial exchange offering... But nowadays maximum project is arranging their IEO instead of ICO. Many projects fundraising through IEO but they later don't arrange their project in exchange.. Another reason to losing their money due to cheapest prices in exchange.

[alltalk]

Both IEO and ICO are not really different but surely IEO is better than ICO. At least, IEO has provided an exchange since the beginning of fundraising. It guarantees the investors to have a place for trading the coins/tokens. All people also can see how the token/coin circulation in that exchange or how many the tokens/coins are sold in real-time.

[aji678]

as long as IEO can run well and smoothly it doesn't matter. for me IEO is a breakthrough or development of ICO. if the problem is effective, either ICO or IEO, I think IEO is better.

[Alcor]

Fundraising in the IEO format began to be carried out due to the fact that many more fraudulent projects began to appear among ICO projects. In this regard, fundraising arose through exchanges, which at the same time did some verification of the prospects of these projects. This turned out to be better now than a regular ICO, but IEO is better only for this time. I think that when states organizationally begin to regulate the activities of ICOs and the level of fraud among them falls sharply, the popularity of ICO projects will rise again. Fundraising in the IEO format through exchanges is more effective, but it cannot provide everyone. In addition, many projects vseravno first conduct an ICO in order to provide advertising to the project, and only then IEO.

[Noverteno]

At this stage, fundraising through IEO is actually more effective than through ICO. However, IEO is also not an ideal fundraising solution when creating new tokens. Exchanges will not be able to satisfy everyone who wants to conduct their IEO. In addition, this format still cannot guarantee that the project will not be fraudulent. This can be much more guaranteed by the state when they begin to organizationally regulate this type of activity. Also, over time, other types of fundraising may appear, because cryptocurrency continues to develop.

[Bobcrypto]

As is stand now in crypto fund raising projects, IEO has demonstrated to be better than ICO. Since the beginning of IEO for some time till now, there has been successful completion sales of coin/token and void of fraud and other related ICO scam fund raising.

[Confero]

When compared with ICO, IEO is certainly better now.  Because at IEO we already know where the tokens that we buy will be released and traded. Investors are certainly more sure to invest their money, because IEO already has a partnership with Exchange that will enter coins from the project to be traded later. And I have also seen several IEOs have experienced success.

[trauchot]

Many companies do not understand that it is necessary to conduct IEO on top or on at least middle popular exchanges and then companies will can collect at least softcap or even hardcap, just a lot of many companies conduct their IEO on scam exchanges like vindax, p2pb2b and collect 0$.

[thefoexx]

when compared to ICO, IEO is far more effective. but this still can't solve the problem of fraud. there are many exchanges that work together with the shit project just to raise funds and then disappear. if IEO is only handled by a few large exchanges, maybe this is much better. and not all exchanges can do IEO.

[bitgood]

as long as IEO is done on a large exchange, I think it's effective for raising funds. but if it's done on an exchange that's less popular, I think it's even worse than ICO. so it all depends on the exchange. Apart from all this, IEO is better than ICO because we don't need to be afraid of the KYC problem.

[vanjava]

IEO's effectiveness can be judged on products, strategies and platforms. for me IEO and ICO cannot be compared, because basically it is to collect fundraising. the value I gave 7.4 for IEO.

[vegasus]

So far, I think IEO is much better than ICO. At least, there are more investors interested in IEO than ICO. It means it is an effective way to attract investors and gain funds. We don't know about how long this can be effective, but till now IEO seems quite effective.

[I-Bit]

In my opinion, both IEO and other token sale types have similarities to have the chances to be a success. However for IEO. it ensures more the investors put their funds because the token has been on the exchange. But, it may be an also a small chance because it depends on what kind of project, team, and also exchange that is used for that IEO.

[Altcoin1998$]

Not effective because many projects arrange IEO in exchange but when they funding the target they flew away without arranging exchange. But IEO is more effective than ico.