ICO Ahoolee: “How We Did Not Collect $ 1,000,000 in 2 Weeks”

Unfortunately, the project of the search engine for goods Ahoolee.io failed to collect a soft cap, all means of this round were returned to investors, but the team is determined to develop the project further. The guys analyzed what went wrong and, moreover, even did it publicly.

The mistakes of the team when conducting pre-ICO for edification to other correspondents were told by the founder of the search engine for goods Ahoolee.io Sergey Ryabov:
Ahoolee: Work on bugs
The first and, perhaps, the most important: we did not communicate with large investors personally.
And, strangely, on pre-ICO, we just did it and were sure that we will close the round in any scenario. This time we hoped for the completed questionnaires, for which we obtained about 4 million, and decided that we would definitely collect a million. I recommend that those who conduct ICO, first agree on a personal basis with investors on closing the amount on the soft-cap minimum and only after that run the ICO.

We had a complicated ICO scheme.

We wanted to go against the rules of the market and act the way it’s done in the venture market, that is, to collect a small round with a huge discount, then a larger round, but still with a big discount, etc. And the rounds we carried far apart in time. Such a scheme on the venture market actually works, but on the ICO – other rules. Obviously, the crypto-investors did not accept this scheme and, therefore, did not want to join.

Investors scared off a huge discount.

In calculating the cost of tokens, we again focused on the sum of venture rounds. In them, a huge discount is given at the pre-seed round due to the huge risks. It turned out that in the ICO market such a discount only discourages investors.
A too complicated explanation of the essence of the project.
Unfortunately, we were not able to convey the idea of ​​the project to ordinary users, at least massively. It makes sense to submit the project so that any user understands by one phrase whether he needs it or not.

Poorly planned PR in the media space.

The articles we expected from the PR partner did not come out at the right time. Therefore, we could count only on ourselves, and quickly create noise in the information space without additional costs is almost impossible. Lay out a budget for paid publications and carefully choose a PR partner.

Not enough active work with the community.

We managed to organize an active Russian-speaking community and did not manage to do it in English at all. In addition, the links to all the communities we put at the bottom of the lending, which did not contribute to the involvement of users. By the way, in our experience, slack is evil. There is constant spam and scam. Also, we practically did not make newsletters by subscribers, and this is also an omission. Work out your e-mail database in full.

Inattention to the role of Advisors.

We attracted the advisers quite late. I can not say that this is critical, but it is still useful that they are.

Too much self-confidence.

In fact, it affected everything, but one of the most serious consequences is a tough smart contract, as a consequence – the inability to extend the ICO’s timing, etc.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *