Last week we looked at use-cases for the blockchain. This week I want to talk about advisers on ICO projects, and how to evaluate them. For full disclosure: I am an adviser to three currently running ICOs.
In the beginning, advisers were brought into ICO projects to broaden the skillsets and experience of the core team without adding more team members. On most investor check lists when carrying out due diligence on an ICO is the makeup of the team (as we’ve discussed here before). Track record? Skills? Choosing knowledgeable and reputable advisers is a way for an ICO to essentially “rent” additional experience to increase its probability of success.
Generally, there are three types of ICO adviser:
- Name only (which I think splits into two sub-types, 1) Authentic and 2)“Career Influencers” (see below)
- Cryptocurrency experienced
- Subject matter expert
The “career influencer” in my view, is quite a negative association. There are ICO advisers out there that are very aggressively forcing their way onto ICO advisory boards, onto ICO review sites and expert directories, but that I know for a fact add very little, if anything, to the advancement of those ICO campaigns.
Authentic “Name onlys” can bring more attention and hype to an ICO project, which can in turn have a positive impact to the success of the ICO. Experienced crypto advisers can bring a level of expertise, contacts, and credibility that can save the ICO team a lot of heartache and add to the size of their community and potential investor list. Subject matter experts bring a lot of credibility and expertise to the writing of the white paper, and give confidence to the community and potential investors that the product will succeed post the ICO.
Do your own research. Reach out and speak directly to advisers. Trust your gut about the team and the advisers it has chosen.