Topic: Altcoin rating guidelines: what to avoid and what to do (Read 87 times)

Cryptocurrency is intense, and while its landscape is continuously evolving, the market should aspire to exceed the level of professionalism of mainstream finance.

In this quest of self-improvement, the ICO market and its rating platforms have begun a curation drive to effectively filter the fraudulent projects from the genuine ones and the less attractive opportunity from the #lambo #moon rockets.

But we're still far behind.

There are some very insightful listing and rating platforms out there (and tropyc is proud to have them as competitors), but we noticed many areas of improvement that rating and listing platforms should focus on:


Conflict of interests
ICO ratings should not undertake consulting and advisory services for upcoming blockchain startups including PR, advisor search, design, smart contract and so one. The same entity should not conduct advisory and rating services.

Pay-for-rating
Let us state the obvious, no rating is valuable if paying a fee increases scores. Additionally, introducing a flat fee to get rated filters out the smaller projects from the bigger ones, therefore, listing and rating should be free!

Open the methodology
Rating needs to be broken down into sub-ratings so that the user can accurately know how the project got a specific rate. A closed-source does not add tremendous value to an investor.

Community rating
Peer-reviewed ratings are open to censorship, manipulation and sentiment bias. As such, a 4/5 on "team" for person A might be a 3/5 for person B, depending on their experience and expectations. While community ratings are crucial and give value to the investor, they should not be clubbed with the platform's review.

full article:https://tropyc.co/pages/news/ico-rating-market-analysis-improvement