[Captain_Usher]

The "monopoly money" perspective isn't wrong, and in general an ICO for a coin that's, say, "bitcoin but a little different" doesn't make much sense. Bitcoin is supposed to be a currency, so an ICO for something bitcoin-ish is like taking investments for a new kind of dollar. You have to get them into circulation somehow, and trading currencies like commodities is a real thing, but it doesn't really explain the current ICO hype.

It makes more sense if you look at most of the ICO tokens from the ethereum point of view, rather than bitcoin. Ethereum and its derivatives let you use tokens as components of distributed applications. Unlike a "pure" currency, which is useful only as a medium of exchange and has no intrinsic value, these tokens let you use the distributed application so they're worth whatever the application is. They aren't really currency, although you can usually buy and sell them and they're used to give the application some kind of market behavior.

Something like filecoin is a better example. The filecoin project intends to build a distributed storage system. If their project succeeds, the filecoin network will let you exchange coins for the network's storage, and storage is valuable so the coins are valuable too. Ideally, they'll use the funding from selling coins in an ICO to make the project so useful that a coin's worth of access will be worth more than what you paid for it during the ICO and the people who participated come out ahead.

Personally I'm still not very impressed with most ICO projects, but at least all of them aren't completely insane when you look at them this way.