Topic: All rating platforms are shit!? - page 2. (Read 619 times)
Sometimes shit sometimes not. Maybe not all though, some rating platforms are for profit and if you would join ICO’s official telegram channel they will ask you to vote their project. It seems that they will have to beg people to vote their project. One factor that makes it good also is investors depend on it as the basis of their investment. They think the higher the rating the more reliable the project is.
Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!
What do you think?
I think it's not fair if you just blame the rating platform, to be honest the mistake is in every investor itself, because it wants instant things and want quickly gets a high profit. The rating platform only gives their opinion about an ico they reviewed, but their review is not an indicator that the ico that gets a good rating is a promising ico. What do you think?
I think that rating platforms are doing very good jobs as they are providing comment about ICO with their related paper like whitepaper and their expectation in a project. They are commenting based on the paper of the coin so they should not be blamed for any discrepancies by the coin. Moreover there are both good and fake platforms. We should be aware of that.
By providing just their comments/hunch about an ICO project based on whatever was scribbled on the whitepaper, they are everything but rating sites. A credible rating site unearth facts and that often include interviewing those behind a project, their identities and contacts, then trust can come in. Other than that you're better off without them except one admits to be too lazy to lift a finger. Btw no serious investor is ever going to put their money on any project based on the recommendations of some online reviewers, without any name or history.
It is not all the ratings that are shit. The problem lies in the fact that the people doing the ratings do it out of the facts and information they lay hold upon about the project which may not turn out to be true. They can't see the future remember, they are only speculating based on the facts they have at hand and things can go south some of the times.
Not all rating platforms are bad, some are credible. Many platform rankings are paid for by the project developers to rank highly. This is very detrimental to investors, I hope you are careful in investing your money.
You have to do your own research. Ratings are great, but you never know who is writing them and that's never enough to base an investment off of. Use ratings, reviews, forums, whitepapers, and follow trends by consistent monitoring to make the best investments you can make.
I will not say that they are shit as they provide useful information about the ICO's and i get alot of help from them....yes they cannot be purely accurate but still they can give you some idea about the ICO which is very important..yes but we must nou blindly trust them
in any case, their activities bring some positive points to our work. of course, before you trust any project, you must check it and thus protect yourself from the risk of being deceived.
I will not say that they are shit as they provide useful information about the ICO's and i get alot of help from them....yes they cannot be purely accurate but still they can give you some idea about the ICO which is very important..yes but we must nou blindly trust them
Yes that's right.
The market is tired of the scum. It's hard to tell a good project from shit. But I'm sure the market will sooner or later find a way to defeat the Bacchanalia, which is now more and more.
Personally, I look at the rating platforms and watch the terms, brief information and skim through the links.
The market is tired of the scum. It's hard to tell a good project from shit. But I'm sure the market will sooner or later find a way to defeat the Bacchanalia, which is now more and more.
Personally, I look at the rating platforms and watch the terms, brief information and skim through the links.
I do not believe in ratings, it is better to study the project without third-party evaluations. But for me ratings are, above all, a handy tool with a lot of projects.
Well, they are surely not shit in one thing - collecting all of the current ICO on one platform, and gathering the most important information about it (such as dates, soft/hard caps, etc.) But I hardly ever take their raitings seriously, and the same applies to any other sources, like youtubers or telegram channels.
Maybe you are upset for some reasons. But, It is not the Icoratings website I think, Because They rated ICO Projects by seeing their team activity, future goal, vision and they verified KYC From the project owner. But at the end of the day, no one knows what's going on in his mind. Some scammers had a good reputation, but after millions of USD Raised, They scammed People. Just think about Hashcard and worldex, Both are managing the good teams, both had an excellent rating before, both were promising, but after 4-5 Millions, USD Raised they scammed people!
So, All rating platforms are not shit. It's about bad people. So, don't go for every project by seeing their excellent rating. Do more research as much as you can. Myself, I like Icobench, Icotracker and con schedule.
So, All rating platforms are not shit. It's about bad people. So, don't go for every project by seeing their excellent rating. Do more research as much as you can. Myself, I like Icobench, Icotracker and con schedule.
Rating platforms exist so that you understand the average evaluation of the project compared to the others, but this estimate does not need to be taken as a 100% guarantee. Once you have found a good project for investment and looked at its assessment, you need to evaluate many more side factors that can tell a lot. Therefore, blaming rating platforms is not entirely correct.
Quite right. Rating platforms are designed to make money, and therefore you will not find objectivity here.
Rating platforms deliberately increase the evaluation of the project for a surcharge. And lower ratings if you paid less
Rating platforms deliberately increase the evaluation of the project for a surcharge. And lower ratings if you paid less
Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!
What do you think?
They can only get the information and appreciate the 70%. The remaining 30% is still a risk if we invest. Previously I have explored a lot of ICO projects on the ICO rating websites. But not all project highly appreciated are successfulWhat do you think?
In my opinion, one shouldn't trust rating websites as criteria to pick icos. You need to do your in depth research to be able to decipher what is good and what is not good though their are no guarantees. I personally like icodrops as they are very professional and gives accurate results up to the tune of 90%.
Dude, your statements are contradicting with each other.
Anyway, I agree with the first statement that one shouldn't rely in ICO ratings. They should only be used as a guide in conducting a resesrch a projects so that you can get another point of view of the project in a different perspective.
In my opinion, one shouldn't trust rating websites as criteria to pick icos. You need to do your in depth research to be able to decipher what is good and what is not good though their are no guarantees. I personally like icodrops as they are very professional and gives accurate results up to the tune of 90%.
I think the rating platform can only be used as one of the reference projects. We can't blindly invest in a project by relying solely on rating. We need to analyze from more aspects!
Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!
What do you think?
What do you think?
I agree to it, all rating websites and others are more like paid media these days. You cannot trust any of those as they are getting paid to write a project profiting posts.
Personally, investors should mature more and start doing research, read whitepaper, check out the Team and advisor. etc.
I think that rating platforms are doing very good jobs as they are providing comment about ICO with their related paper like whitepaper and their expectation in a project. They are commenting based on the paper of the coin so they should not be blamed for any discrepancies by the coin. Moreover there are both good and fake platforms. We should be aware of that.
Jump to: