A ranking has been published of the top 20 most important failed ICOs in history in terms of funds raised.
The ranking takes into account the top 20 ICOs of all time in terms of funds raised and divides them between successful ICOs (S) and failed ICOs (F), using as distinctive criteria the fulfilment of the roadmap, the performance of the token prices and the involvement of the community.
The first place is occupied by the successful ICO of EOS, with 4.2 billion dollars raised. But in second place there is Telegram (TON), with two collection rounds of 850 million each, but marked as a failed ICO.
In reality, Gram tokens will only be distributed in autumn, so it is questionable whether TON should be defined as a failed project because tokens are not yet available on the market.
In third place, there is the ICO of TaTaTu, with 575 million dollars raised in 2018.
The other ICOs marked as failed are:
- Dragon (320 million)
- The DAO (152 million)
- Bankera (150 million)
- Envion (100 million)
- COMSA (95 million)
- Status (95 million)
- Comparagon (94 million).
Whereas, in addition to EOS, successful ICOs include Huobi, Filecoin, Tezos, Sirin Labs, Bancor, Polkadot, Orbs Qash, KIK and TenX. In total there are 11 successful ICOs out of the 20 and 9 which are defined as failed projects, but among these, some may still prove to be successful.
The author of the research, Akash Girimath, comments on these figures by saying that the ICOs have surfaced in the market as a revolutionary way of raising capital, potentially beneficial for all and able to involve the public in the development of new projects.
This methodology in 2017 was completely new, thus not regulated by any authority, and, in view of the euphoria generated by the speculative bubble on bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, it was able to easily attract large amounts of capital.
However, in many cases it was just a way to make quick profits and then get out, leaving investors with a lot of useless tokens.
In any case, in this chart of the 20 largest ICOs ever, the over 50% success rate should probably not be considered as a severely negative figure. It is certainly not a very positive figure, but in a completely new and unregulated market, it cannot be called a total failure.
It must also be said that, since 2018, things have changed in this sector, with fewer projects, less capital raised and more regulation.