In my opinion, TaTaTu can be considered a powerful indicator of the changes which are occurring now on the cryptocurrency market.

The time of hype has passed, now ICO projects try to aim not at attracting large numbers of small investors, but at involving big instituitional players. The projects launching ICOs see no point in large-scale marketing campaigns. Instead, they concentrate on presentations and personal meetings with investors. The decrease in influence of the cryptocurrency community, beginning from experts and advisers and finishing with resources and trackers, is on.

I would like to dwell on the second point because I consider it a serious problem for the industry.

Marketing of the ICOs of the second wave

If earlier projects pursued appreciation on trackers and tried to attract a lot of traffic to their resources, now the approach to conducting ICOs has changed. Startups are in no hurry to launch their ICOs because an ICO is most likely doomed to fail without the participation of at least one large investor.

The example of TaTaTu shows that large investors are not interested in a marketing strategy or the ICOBench rating, they pay attention to the business plan and the product developed by a company, and, finally, to the profit which it will bring in the future.

The fact that successful projects do not devote enough attention to social media positioning or marketing strategies is actually an indicator of a crisis in the cryptocurrency community and the growing scepticism towards the industry’s authorities. It is connected not so much with the fact that hype has ceased to be the key factor of an ICO’s success and not even with the crazy advertising prices, as with the fact that there are no true experts and authorities in this sphere. And everybody understands that.

The year 2017 with its hype made us get used to the idea, that the ICO sphere is full of easy money and that spending some thousands of dollars for a publication in Cointelegraph is a mere trifle in comparison with the millions of dollars which can be raised from scratch. “Adviser” and “expert” were the titles of people who successfully (or even unsuccessfully) launched at least one ICO and acted in the role of a speaker at different cryptocurrency forums.

Now spending money on high ICO tracker ratings and video reviews on cryptocurrency channels seems like a senseless idea because practice shows that large investors do not treat such advertising in earnest. Even participating in a project of a person who is “well-known in the cryptocurrency community” does not guarantee the success of an ICO at all. It is much more important to spend funds and efforts creating a high-quality MVP (I do not speak only about FairWin, other startups do this too).

The shortage of professional analysts and ICO experts is a serious problem and I think about it every time when FairWin is criticised for the absence of advisers.

Follow us

Twitter: https://twitter.com/FairwinGambling

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/fairwin.gambling/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fairwin_team/

Chat with us:

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hbardp2

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/fair-win

Telegram: https://t.me/fair_win