Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 35. (Read 6947 times)
I think that some of them are corrupted , and because of them I never follow those type of websites. I simply do not trust
These websites made a lot for ICOs, because they simplified the process of project researching for investors. Moreover, the collected and structured their information and data from the whitepaper and website. So, at least we have to say thanks for them. About the ratings, don't trust them, because it is not objective.
Yes, I always watch ICO ratings. These ratings are made by smart people with a lot of experience. They often write about the fact that you need to pay special attention on something and where there can be risks. Of course, the investor makes the decision independently, but such ratings pay attention to fraudulent projects. Most of these website are getting paid with every post or good reviews they posted,its for the project's hyping promotions so more people will know a lot about this ICO,which is unhealthy they are making up people's mind even the project is trashy,the best way to find great project is to do your own research.
I don't trust ico ratings. I trust only my own research 
ICO rating is a good way to filter out normal projects and create shortlist for investment. But the ratings can not be used to make a final investment decision. You need to make your own research.
No I do not believe. I trust, only my personal analysis of projects and experience. Ratings can be corrupt, so they can not be trusted.
I dont believe that. Everyone is acting in their own interests. if you give money to a site or to someone they will find positive comments for you and give you high marks.
Not investment only by looking at ratings
Not investment only by looking at ratings
Basically, those ICOs that are having high ratings are also having large popularity which is a huge factor on the success of a project. The promotion through bounties for a project aims to make the project big, so if it is having already high rating, it is obviously an advantage. Also, based on my past experiences, those that are in the top ico ratings are the ones that are more profitable to invest because huge profit is a bit assured.
to analyze whether the ICO can be believed or good is one of them by looking at the rating, if it has a good rating then many believe and will have many investors so that it can be my reference to follow the ICO
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!
Well, at somewhat at somepoint. Nevertheless that is what makes them credible to be true. We, and the individual won't even dare to just dig in on ICO; investing, lending or even join some stuffs on it like signature campaign, facebook, twitter, instagram, telegram or other sorts of option if the ICO isn't pleasing to the eyes or more likely they aren't real, the ratings are too low, not credible enough, because it might end up as a failure or worst it is just a scam.
I do not believe in ICO rankings. I believe in what I analyze. When evaluating an ICO project I often see what the idea of project development is. The domain's uptime. Team project development team and further test contract of the project.
i do not believe it completely but that help me to select some good projects. i consider those projects for my study as i select projects with high rating. i am also aware that these sites got paid to give rating but there are some projects also that i can looked in to.
I do not believe the ratings, but still consider them when choosing an ICO project. It is best to learn how to do your own qualitative analysis. It will take a long time, but the result is likely to be more accurate, based on your own reasoning.
no, because ICO rating can not prove that ICO is very good to be an investment, therefore I rarely see ICO rating if I want to invest in ICO.
I believe only if the rating isn't good. If it's good I research more, but at least I'm not wasting my time on bad projects.
There is a well known method for ICO investing: do your own research. In the previous year once I've been asked to help one ICO to send some e-mails to different ICO related websites (including listings) and I've discovered that a pretty big part of the ICO ratings are require payments to get your project listed on their website. That comes especialy about the local websites. The mail nesson was that ICO ratings can never be 100% trusted. Ofcourse they may show the grneral hype around the coin but you should always make your own research.
Ico ratings can show u interst of people for that ico, after that u need to make your search for that ico and most important thing is investitors of ico. If they are famous its very important.
I don't believe in ICO ratings any longer. Most of them don't just work at all. What I do most of the time is to look at the project itself and make some analysis bases on how the project looks promising. I consider if there is a similar project already running or if there is one which is far better than the current one or vice versa.
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!
I don't look at them at all, I trust my judgement and my criteria, I read from one post here that you can increase your rating by paying your rating, these are what you called the new hyip monitor, better trust your judgement, not all of these Ico rating sites are accurate.
Your way is probably the best way of doing it. I usually check the ratings of the projects I am interested in, just for a brief idea, but I form my final opinion myself.
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!
I don't look at them at all, I trust my judgement and my criteria, I read from one post here that you can increase your rating by paying your rating, these are what you called the new hyip monitor, better trust your judgement, not all of these Ico rating sites are accurate.
Jump to: