Topic: Current ICO's rating systems. What do you think? - page 2. (Read 672 times)

I think that famous ICO ratings can`t describe the real picture, because everyone can buy this "rating". BUT I can check real scams there and it`s very good for me.

With the emergence of a large number of ICO projects, the current rating system can no longer satisfy the reference of authenticity and development potential. A better rating system needs to be developed.

I don't believe in the rating platform. I think the rating platform definitely needs income since it takes time to sort it out. So this may lead to the objectivity of the rating company.

yes, it helped me find an ICO project with good progress in the future. especially now, when many scam ICO, but I don't fully trust the ICO rating, because sometimes it's just project manipulation.

websites and whitepapers always become a barometer to see the good ICO.

I advise you not to trust the ratings, but to conduct the analysis of projects personally.

Those crypto ratings are only used as a badge to be displayed on their website just to make their platform interesting or to make their project more convincing that it has a future in the market. After the ICO, those ratings were just a bluff and you will end up disappointed. The higher the ratings, the higher the money they paid to that website. Video updates with the project is more convincing for me than those fake ratings.

Some of the rating pages do give a little bit more of trust and checking, mostly those related to strong and long standing review with plenty of valuations and a check for the ICO teams.

None I know is up to standard as far as transparency is concerned. Most of the websites are controlled by a person or few individuals.

Crypto World is a bit disorganized at the moment. The current creators of Cryptocurrencies are not ready to let go of their hold on "Decentralized" projects. There are lot of businessmen in Crypto world these days but very few ideological developers.
I think having decentralized rating sites with good reputation system could solve most of the problem especially the transparency issue. There should be set Standards which new Projects that want to be taken seriously must pass through.
The Standards should be created, debated on and set by the Community. [Community could be made up of Developers of top 100 Cryptocurrencies. The developers have to discuss things first within their various communities. For example: Bitcoin main devs agree within their community which standard should be agreed on.]

Some of my set Standards:
1. Project must be Original and Authentic .. . & possibly Unique .
2. How technically sound the project is % (in percentage)
3. Project viability %
4. Project must be well Decentralized % (how Decentralized?)
5. Whitepaper must be free from plagiarism.
6. Coin should not be premined above x percentage.
7. There should be Proof of concept or something.
8. Developer/Developers should be X experienced.
9. How hack proof or secure is the project % (in percentage)
Etc...

* Rating Standards can be divided into different layers as numbered above. Project/ICO would pass through each layer and get rated by algorithm and human evaluators.
*The raters or evaluators should be good algorithms and people with well deserved reputation.
* Human evaluators could be paid in the system Coin.
* System should be designed in such a way that Human evaluators who are found ignoring, over-rating or under-rating are automatically kicked out or suspended.
* Rating from Algorithm should placed side by side of the rating of human. Example: final rating of a particular ICO/Project could be like this:
Algo Rating = 38%
Human Rating = 42%
* Project that wants to pass through rating should purchase reasonable amounts of the system Coin.

I do not look at any ICO rating except the one that I make from doing my own research. One thing that I have come to realize is that these ICO rating websites can simply be paid to give good ratings to certain ICOs even if they are not that good. Money speaks. That is why it is best for everyone to learn to research into the ICOs they want to invest in by themselves.

they need to pay attention, but not the most important thing. most often shoot those projects that have one unknown expert

Quite doubtful ratings on ICObench, because sometimes bad projects sometimes have a good rating and do not even collect a softcap.

I hate current rating system! People see these corrupted estimations and then make an investment decision based on these 5 star rating. The only trusted agency is ICO drops. Although they are russians, they don't allow russians projects to be listed, because such projects tends to be failing

Getting a good ICO to invest in is not a  question of rating rather, it's deliberate attempt to find out the best ICO project out there that will support your believe and have potential for real return on your investment.

Do you think the current rating system should be changed?

as I would like to think considering ico rating or any words from some impact individuals won't influence me to accept 100%. every one of them had their own business and purposes. you should simply just make your own exploration on some ICO to choose great one from it and im beyond any doubt it will more fulfill you when you take your benefit from your speculation.

I agree with you, I personally don't also believe the ratings and the positive comments of other popular cypto influencer as some of them are paid and maybe some have investments in that particular project.

in my opinion considering ico rating or any words from some influence people will not make me believe 100%. each of them had their own business and purposes. all you have to do is only make your own research on some ICO to select very good one from it and im sure it will more satisfy you when you take your profit from your investment. i would rather not to listen other prediction about some project, only balanced review i should consider.

Current ratings help to choose a project for investment. But as we know, it's better to trust only yourself, but in some cases you need to listen to the opinion of well-known and experienced analysts.

It's very helping for me, I can choose good good bounty program with check their ICO. And usually good ICO project have good Bounty program too.

Depends on the platform. Some are pay to list, pay to be in the top, etc. while other's are completely honest. It seems like there's some decent feedback on which sites are honest or dishonest in this thread, but like everything else with crypto, DYOR.