I don't. People are too quick to jump on the hype bandwagon.
Though it's a good way to see the popular ones and then go from there.
Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 102. (Read 6947 times)
No, the rating sometimes are rated by the hyip over the project of which the project may not succeed at the long run even if they are rated very high.
I think these ratings can be trusted, at least in general terms. If you have all your opinion and a lot of free time, you can study each project independently by your criteria.
Yes your right its good to study the project first and before they inter it, but be careful always.
I believe in ICO and the fact that you can make good money for some. But if you want to earn on investments or work on ICO, you should filter information about them, because this is quite an easy task, which takes quite a long time.
in my opinion, it only provides predictions, not the actual results. disebuah website is indeed described rating, but for me the rating is only assessed from the preparation of the project ico whether he is good or not, the materials, and the project team. rating can change after the success of the project. so the rating has no effect in sales. many ico are rating below 4, but their sales are good ..
I don't think you should trust community ratings when deciding to invest but they're good for seeing what the most popular ICO is and then starting from there.
See what's popular, research the hell out of it, and then invest only after that, if you're sure of course.
See what's popular, research the hell out of it, and then invest only after that, if you're sure of course.
I don't consider them completely objective, but I often check the information there to at least approximately remain in the course of events.
I think that rating only an occasion to pay attention to ICO, but no more. I came up against a situation when the company with high rating at attentive viewing raised many questions. The Reting is only one of assessment sources, and not main. It would be silly to use only it.
It's a really interesting question. I believe in ratings but always try to compare them. I take a look for different ratings and never make a decision based on just one review.
Some of their ratings is not exactly be done since they are using prediction too but yes I believe in ICO ratings since some of them are really helpful to us to join or where to join ICOs.
I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.
Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
What I can say about such sites is "use it for references only". I do use those website when I want to invest on an ICO, but I do not always follow the rating. Use it for additional information only, the decision is on our hands in which ICOs we are going to invest our money.
Self decision is always better than just sticking to follow others, it will be more hurt if you follow others in investing when what you follow is something that can be called as a fail.
I use ICO ratings to assist me when doing ICO research. I don't take it to the heart. There are some ICO with great rating and fail and ICO with a bad rating that succeeds.
You can not trust most of them. Definitely not the paid ones.
At the best they are indicative as signals if top few of them show the same rating for an ICO.
At the best they are indicative as signals if top few of them show the same rating for an ICO.
In my personal personal opinion, I don't really think that ICO ratings is important but perhaps other people are referring it but I don't feel comfortable that an ICO is already gained popularity but in the real world.
When a coin hits coinmarketcap.com then after a month that would be the best score of they are good or not, or they will have the potential or not.
When a coin hits coinmarketcap.com then after a month that would be the best score of they are good or not, or they will have the potential or not.
At some extent, yes I do believe. There are some good ICO rating sites which mostly write honest reviews. I found crypto rated good one. But I think we should analyse the official website and read the whitepaper carefully before investing.
I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.
Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
Yes, you're right. I have seen such cases. Some projects are not highly rated by ICObench, but I see them doing ICO, Token Sale is quite successful and has the attention of the crypto community. I think that the ICO rating websites are for reference only, we should not trust absolute. It is important to study the project seriously before making an investment decision Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.
So let's discuss ICO Rating!
I myself am not so sure with the ICO rating given because it could be the Ico rating can be through the voting of the project campaign participants, because it has been proven ICO with a high rating also did not experience good sales and even with low ratings have good sales.
So the ICO rating can not be used as our benchmark to know whether the project is potential or not.
So the ICO rating can not be used as our benchmark to know whether the project is potential or not.
I read the ratings from time to time but I do not rely on them completely and prefer to compare different sources.
It is even better to do the analysis of the project yourself - so at least there will be nobody to blame except for yourself in the event of a failure of the ICO.
It is even better to do the analysis of the project yourself - so at least there will be nobody to blame except for yourself in the event of a failure of the ICO.
I partially believe. At a minimum, I can quickly understand what kind of project it is and compare it with other similar projects. Especially after seeing a few, you can find out the average.
I noticed, that quite often there is a difference between ICOBench overall ICO profile rating and expert ratings, so it is necessary to always do your own research, although ICO ratings can be a really helpful and trustable sources sometimes.
Jump to: