I am always checking CryptoCompare.com to see what ICOs are happening and which ones are coming up (I like their format and columns). Swarm Fund caught my attention because it was “a cooperative ownership platform for real assets.” Not to be confused with something like Kickstarter because instead of investing on a project that needs funding to get started, you would be investing on real life commodities and crypto assets, things that already exist. Sounded exciting right? Yeah, that’s what I thought too!
The next step was to check their website, the team, read their whitepaper (a process I am not a big fan of, but it is necessary), and the first thing I didn’t like was their disclaimer:
Yes, I understand there are risks with any type of investment you make (crypto or not crypto related, I have seen those disclaimers), but in my opinion your Whitepaper should be something solid, something concrete, an actual plan and not say off the bat that these are “anticipated plans” or something that you could change at your discretion. I am sorry but that is just too broad, and I would actually appreciate it if someone from the team could explain it a bit more. I want to know what I am investing in, not that I invested in something and it was changed to a porn or drug oriented project (I know I am being overly exaggerated saying that, but it is just to prove how broad that statement can be interpreted).
After that, I simply skimmed the rest of their WP (felt there was no point in reading something that could be changed at any point), and decided to visit forums, read other users thoughts, etc. What I learned is that this is Swarm Fund's second attempt at an ICO. There was Swarm Fund 1.0 (they are still managing the TokenSwap process to honor early investors as some still have Swarm 1.0 tokens stuck/frozen in Poloniex) and yes, this is Swarm Fund 2.0, where I haven’t seen much communication from the team and their token sale has been postponed multiple times (it was supposed to begin on September 9th, 2017, then it was “targeted to reopen on 9/21”, and now it “re-opens 10/21” even though it never opened, unless they are counting 1.0), but this raised some red flags for me and made me more convinced they don't have a solid plan yet.
In my book, there are some requirements I look for in an ICO:
- Solid team.
- Concrete idea (I prefer if it is a product / project that is already out there)
- Token applicability, preferably outside of their platform (or if there are plans for that).
Unfortunately they were missing all of them, which is why I will not be investing or supporting their campaign anymore (I am sure the team has a solid CV, but I didn’t like the lack of communication I saw on forums. I do respect that they still want to honor early investors, but again, I feel like if they had had a more concrete plan from the beginning a second version of the tokens / ICO would not have been needed).
Please note my intention is not to troll this project. This is my honest opinion, and like I said earlier it would be great if someone from the team could explain the reason behind that broad disclaimer. To be honest, when I discovered this project I was very excited about it and it was going to be my first ICO (I even signed up for their bounty campaign because I feel like if I am going to invest in something it is because I truly believe in the project and should support it in any possible way). If the project is indeed a success I will probably be kicking myself, and I do wish them the best.
Happy ICOing everyone!
Ally
PS. In case you were wondering, Electroneum was my first ICO. You can read my thoughts here.