2018’s Worst ICO ever? Meet the Invacio AI project. Only a shattering 95% loss to investors.

2018’s Worst ICO ever? Meet the Invacio AI project. Only a shattering 95% loss to investors. It wasn’t long ago that Invacio was making waves introducing their ICO. The company promised to work on resolving the world’s most complex issues through their in house AI named “Jean” who is focused on data, financial technology, banking, and cryptocurrency. Throughout their ICO stages projected prices for their token were released encouraging people to get on board before the token price would climb to the forecasted value of $1.40 by the fourth stage of investing. Stage 1: $0.30/coin (Jan 30, 2018) Stage 2: $0.65/coin Stage 3: $1.05/coin Stage 4: $1.40/coin (Source) Not sure who Invacio put in power to create such a horrible token structure, but they definitely get props for achieving the world’s most terrible looking graph for loyal investors. Aimed on finding inefficiencies on any Invacios systems and optimizing them Jean the AI was sold as the immutable fix-all component the company would eventually build all of its concepts on. Turns out that Jean, instead of being a capable and functioning AI like its cousin IBM’s Watson, is more like Watson’s inbred cousin from the country who can’t even count to potato. Fast forward to the present day and you will find that Invacio and their concepts have fallen apart. After their ICO the price of the INV token sank by 95% resulting in a flood of individuals who had critical questions about the happenings of the company and its future, most of whom were then promptly blocked and deleted from the Telegram group as it was shut down by the company. As many as 10,000 individuals no longer had access to communication to Invacio, losing their money in the process. A quick google search for “invacio review” reveals something interesting, especially within the comment section of these reviews, particularly this one. While above, the shiny and attractive aspects of Invacio are covered and explained, the reality of the project becomes embarrassingly exposed. The next search result to show up underneath the last article is an Invacio Review from Verified ICOs which applauds the concept and potential team, but fails to endorse the execution of this businesses plans saying “The core of the business has made many technological leaps through successive applications leading to their current philanthropic business model. However, we are skeptical of all their excessive claims and obvious shilling.” In addition, numerous analysis flags are documented for consideration. There are numerous places where one can find perspectives both for and against Invacio and their concepts. Everything from video reviews to first hand accounts of people’s experience with the company are not difficult to find. One thing seems to emerge from pouring over countless cases of both, and that is the absence of legitimate claims proving that Invacio has done, or doing, what they promised. On one hand you have the community of people who seem to support Invacio, this group of people seems extremely limited and tend to draw on vague descriptions of “proof” that seem to be intangibly verifiable. It would seem promises and concepts are “in process” and everything is “progressing”, which means nothing when there is no concrete way to back such claims. What is overwhelmingly abundant are the experiences of people who have been involved in this project, many from the first stage of token sales, who have shared detailed explanations of why they think Invacio is not for them. Famously in an article written last month, an author details the particulars of Invacio as well as background on the companies CEO in an effort to connect the dots on a high level understanding of what Invacio is promising. Suffice it to say this article doesn’t shine a kind light on Invacio and paint a picture of the reality of Invacio and their interactions with the real world. Well known YouTube creator Keith Wareing did a deep dive into this company and got a hold of Roger Baker who works for Invacio and had a chat about the project and its investors experiences in this video. While the video itself is somewhat lengthy at nearly 38 minutes long, it is well worth the watch to see Keith ask some of the hard questions on a search to find the truth of Invacio. Eventually the discussion reaches a boiling point where the excuses just won’t cut it anymore and Keith gives Roger backer a piece of his mind, check that out here. The positive reviews of their ICO showed that many people were sold and in support of the dream that Invacio was selling. After all, it looked so good, perhaps too good… Needless to say Invacio seemed to fall apart once money was secured through their ICO. Sadly, this type of circumstance is too common in the ICO world. A new study suggest that in 2017 80% of ICO’s were fraudulent and so far in 2018 things have yet to improve. While the sheer number of ICO’s has drastically dropped it is still apparent that there are companies out there not selling whole truths. There is even an article that outlines the 11 times Invacio have been caught lying in case you needed some information to think on. While many individuals may make a case for Invacio, and even have valid information that bolsters the group themselves, it’s hard to argue with the laundry list of cases against them.