Thoughts on the ICO advisors market
Months have passed since the launch of our ICO and we have noted many anecdotes and points that deserve to be addressed in the Initial Coin Offering ecosystem.
We could talk about the many scams, the many identity theft, the youtubeurs promising you a review of the project that will never be done (correctly), the astronomical prices of some ICO marketing agencies or the pseudo-specialized media in the Blockchain field, which turn out, in the end, to be specialized only to collect the money that we want to give them.
The point we are going to discuss concerns a business that you probably know, and which is growing day by day. I am referring to the famous ICO Advisors.
It seems important to us to recall that there are many abuses within this community and it seems important to us, as the leader of a Blockchain project, to give our opinion on the so-called”specialists” in the sector.
Indeed, many ICO Advisors, generally the most famous, do not hesitate to lend their names to all the Blockchain projects they find, for the sole purpose of making money by surfing on their name. These unscrupulous advisors, whose services are, let us not be afraid of words, non-existent, are legion. Many of them will promise you everything before the contract is signed and will not hesitate to ask you for significant, if not prohibitive, fees. When the contract is signed and the fees are paid, they openly show their non-involvement and it becomes much more difficult to ask them for help, and sometimes even to simply contact them.
Just take a look at the LinkedIn experiences of the most famous advisors, (whose names we will not mention, you will probably recognize them) to realize the trickery. How is it possible to “work” seriously when you have no less than 50 or 60 ICOs and blockchain projects of all kinds?
You are certainly aware, as the leader (or future leader) of a Blockchain project, of the time it takes to spend, when you are an advisor, answering questions, managing social networks, sending emails, contacting potential investors… in short, the task is monumental. It is simply impossible to do this correctly when the number of projects becomes too large.
This leads me to enrich my reflection by asking myself a second question. I still wonder why many advisors do not work as a team?
Take the problem differently: an advisor, by virtue of his studies and general background, has skills. They can be managerial, commercial, marketing, financial, etc… but they are limited for each individual. Why do large companies hire employees with different profiles? Simply to cover more areas of expertise.
How can you even consider a beginning of success for your project if you have only one advisor, even if you know him well? His skills will be limited, as will everyone else. Perhaps he will be competent on the marketing side, but lacking on the financial side. On the contrary, he may be very competent in financial matters, but he will probably be weaker (not to say incompetent) on the marketing side… it seems simple to understand. However, I am always surprised to see project founders taking only one or two advisors, often with the same skills (when they really have them and they do not end up in the project only by having a pseudo-reputation on the Internet, which, let us not hide the fact, is unfortunately almost always the case).
Promotion Chief of Advisor – Quentin Herbrecht
And exceptions are rare enough to mention them.
We would therefore like to thank our advisor Quentin Herbrecht and his company, the Crypto Intelligence Agency, who, for once, kept the work they promised us. Quentin, as well as all the members of his team, composed of several renowned french Advisors (Bryan BLAEVOET, Florian REZEAU, Vladimir DENIS, Guillaume MICOUIN) have demonstrated their competence in many respects.
With each one a different area of expertise, these advisors gave their best, and not just before cashing the cheque….
It is for these different reasons that we have decided to promote Quentin Herbrecht at the head of the different advisors to supervise our different advisors, establish reporting and lead the entire team for this last phase which promises to be decisive for the SaTT project.
This article, or rather I should say this blow, should not be interpreted as any promotion for the Advisors of my project or as a propaganda banner but as a real disappointment and a general awareness on the ICO Advisors market.
A good listener.