<p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Statistics relentless - in 2018 80% of the planned ICO does not start, and the percentage of successful ICO (in the sense of collecting the planned amounts) does not exceed 2%. Today, about twenty ICO are launched every day, so the costs of their marketing are growing. If last year the marketing budget of the project was about $ 300,000, then this year experts advise to stock at least $ 500,000. At the same time, the average amount of collection is also steadily decreasing - now it is realistic to collect from one to five million dollars.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Is there any common sense to risk running an expensive ICO project advertising campaign without guaranteed success? No. The ICO will have success with a real product or service that needs funds for its commercialization, namely, projects with a good idea and a business model that may be of interest not only to irrational investors from the crypto community (which have become much more rational today), but also venture investors. If in 2017, immediately after the ICO complete the project team received the amount of collected funds at their disposal, without any obligation and control (and these amounts were often much higher than is necessary for the implementation of the project), it is possible to eliminate in 2018 the possibility of such developments.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Today, it blurs the boundaries between the ICO, IPO and venture capital projects. For example, the NAGA Group AG – Fin-Tech company, listed IPO on the German stock exchange in Frankfurt, then held a successful ICO. There are successful examples of mirrored use. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Now the new mixed financing schemes are relevant:</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">use the funds of venture investors to launch the project, and then conduct an ICO for full funding;</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">one-stage ICO scheme, but releasing tokens provided by tangible assets (ICO then really become similar to the IPO);</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">use a combination of schemes for blockchain projects business application with financing for the provision of intangible assets;</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">conduction of ICO modeled Crowd Source Funding (CSF) depending on the real economic meaning of the token (if it makes sense to the asset, the CSF, if the token is really utility, the ICO - until such a scheme works only in Australia)</span></li></ul><p><b><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3"> </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Investors' expectations</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Having experienced the deliberate deceit of expectations, investors today realized that the vast majority of project teams spend their funds inefficiently (at best) and will not be able to fulfill the promises, colorfully described in the roadmap. The requirements for ICO projects have increased, but different groups of investors have different expectations. All investors can be divided into <span style="text-decoration: underline;">three groups</span>:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri;" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3">Group А — <em>irrational ICO investors</em> from the crypto community and speculators, rely on the significant difference in token’s price at presale and at the crowd sale stage of ICO;</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Group B — <em>rational investors</em> interested in concrete blockchain annexes;</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Group C — <em>new investors</em> who previously invested only in venture projects.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Different investors' requirements of the three groups significantly, even investors group A require changes to the ICO system. They want to see more smart white paper and more distinct roadmap. Today they insist on an independent evaluation of the project. The profiles of the organizers in LinkedIn are carefully checked and their activity is monitored in social networks. Investors of Group B are interested in organizational improvements of ICO no less than investors of Group A, but they have specific wishes, including:</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">depositing funds on escrow account by ICO organizers with the possibility of control by investors for their expenses;</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">negation of the feasibility of a significant difference in the price of the token on presale and crowdsale (which contradicts the requirements of Group A investors);</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">desire to understand what the unique technological or business features of the project are that make it attractive for investment.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Investors of Group C understand (and largely share) the demands of investors of groups A and B. They expect from the organizers of the ICO:</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">financial justification of promises (in figures and facts) - proof of payback and potential profitability of the project;</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">confirmation that the intellectual property of the project is not only available, but also duly formalized and protected;</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;" size="3"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">actions from project organizers within the framework of ICO legislation / regulation in the relevant jurisdictions.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Overall, investors' attention has shifted from marketing "package" on the quality of the projects. In 2018, only projects that have serious competitive advantages, an innovative application of blockchain in real business, a strong and competent development team and a thoughtful economy of the token will be financed further.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3"> </span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">Behavior of regulators</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;" face="Calibri" size="3">The behavior of regulators in different countries of the ICO has a fairly wide range from a total ban (USA, China, South Korea) to support under certain conditions (Australia, Switzerland). Australian financial regulator ASIC Australia ICO asks the organizers to contact him through its Innovation Center at the beginning of the process of campaign planning, to talk about the business model and the token economy. At the same time, ASIC offers help and advice for free. Swiss regulator FINMA financial market encourages organizers of ICO make a formal request to FINMA, but charges a fee - depending on the ICO structure complexity or token model, an average of 10 000 to 15 000 Swiss francs (see FINMA Ordinance of The Leving of Supervisory Fes and Levies).</span></p>