Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 39. (Read 6918 times)
I do not trust sites that assign rating to crypto projects, I believe that all ratings are often appropriated unobjectively. Perhaps they assign a high rating to the project, for a part of the award, I took part in critical projects with high ratings, and in the end I lost all my money. Only study crypto projects yourself.
yes icoratings are very effective in determining a good ico. these ratings serves as basis for investor to invest in this kind of project. having a good ratings have a good impression to the investors, that is likely to prosper and to succeed.
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!
yes i do consider ico ratings as a good point of advantage in comparing projects where to invest but i dont know if this entities are accepting payments from the project developers or they are doing it with a good conscience. if they are not accepting payments from project developers, how can they sustain their page and people?
Anyone can make an ICO that has a good ratings but, I my own experience reading and learning is the best key for a good ICO campaign. Ratings is easy to make and some other data information about an ICO, but for me I join and check the team of the ICO if it is legit or not because, now a days a lot of fake and scam ICO in the social media and other forums of crypto. Sometimes good rating of ICO has a potential in the future and can be useful to the people.
I don't fully believe in ICO ratings but I do consider the ratings of some coins before I invest in it. ICO ratings mostly give details of the project with respect to the advisors, partners and others. These criteria usually help me to analyze the ICO on my own. These are all benefits we get from ICO rating sites.
i don't beieve it, a lot of ICO rating site out there now,,
but, i believe in my personal research,,
but, i believe in my personal research,,
I'm quite confident with the ICO rating, because usually the rating is obtained from the assessment of some people who understand about ICO and can assess the success rate. To see the rating, we do not see from one website only because sometimes good at website A is not necessarily good at website B. In ICObench usually there is also a low rating and no expert judge, but ICO was a great success. This is what makes us not 100% make rating as a benchmark of the success rate of an ICO. Moreover, even successful ICOs are not necessarily when the price listings are stable and are above the ICO price.
It is what we assume , while reality is completely different . they asses everything and then decide rating and team members offer free tokens or money to them then they publish manipulated ratings . in icobench itself i saw 4 stars for scam ICOs , 4.5 star for completely useless ico in terms of price and future of project .
I do belief in ico rating but not from all ico rating sites. Some sites give a rating of about 4.7, but the project sometimes even fail. Though there are numerous ico rating sites that are genuine, most ico ratings are paid for, and do not serve their purpose.
earlier i used to believe them but then i realized it is all about promotion and paid shill , they are paid in btc or in tokens . most of ratings are paid , while few are genuine so we should check ourselves before investing money into any project .
The websites that dedicate to it are mostly sites that get paid to promote certain ICO, so you don't have a warranty, you don't know if the top ico would be good or a scam.
Some websites do get paid to promote coins but there is a lot of those websites that only get recognition if they actually promote scam coins.
I have little confidence in such ratings, but I think that they help to weed out really bad projects. Good projects need to be looked for independently. Also, I think it's very difficult to foresee how the project and crypto-currencies in general will develop.
Not at all, it was hard to believe in ICO ratings, because even the ICO ratings are not 100% sure. Also, in my own opinion they can not protect you from failures and phishing. ICO rating is not totally accurate, effective and efficient.
No are useless some ICO Scammed even if had good rate on those websites.
I don't really believe in ICO ratings most of them are financial induced and some people have provided an evidence about the induced ratings on the most of the ico listing site,
I'm quite confident with the ICO rating, because usually the rating is obtained from the assessment of some people who understand about ICO and can assess the success rate. To see the rating, we do not see from one website only because sometimes good at website A is not necessarily good at website B. In ICObench usually there is also a low rating and no expert judge, but ICO was a great success. This is what makes us not 100% make rating as a benchmark of the success rate of an ICO. Moreover, even successful ICOs are not necessarily when the price listings are stable and are above the ICO price.
ico ratings are grweat, but i know that you can rely on them and i think you can trust them and there are a lot good 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!
io ratings are good, but i see no reason why you shoud not trust them, though it is so stupid to rely only on them 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'm quite confident with the ICO rating, because usually the rating is obtained from the assessment of some people who understand about ICO and can assess the success rate. To see the rating, we do not see from one website only because sometimes good at website A is not necessarily good at website B. In ICObench usually there is also a low rating and no expert judge, but ICO was a great success. This is what makes us not 100% make rating as a benchmark of the success rate of an ICO. Moreover, even successful ICOs are not necessarily when the price listings are stable and are above the ICO price.
In most cases, the ICO ratings are set at approximately the same level and therefore they do not help me personally, except that if you want to see a project is not a Scam, although even this you can not understand based on the ICO rating.
The websites that dedicate to it are mostly sites that get paid to promote certain ICO, so you don't have a warranty, you don't know if the top ico would be good or a scam.
I do not need anyone to talk to me before i can discover the genuineness of a project. Although, some times, we need to be careful of our findings by also seeking the view of some developer, but i do not depend solely on listing sites.
Jump to: