Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 40. (Read 6947 times)
Yes i believe in ICO ratings because it makes some coins legit and it will serve as an assurance for all the investors in the community. But sometimes it is nonsense because some of the rating sites are just being paid to make a good review.
I do believe in ICO rating. I'm using it as part of my factor in joining any projects. Well, the team in ICO rating did there homework before marking the project publicly. There are project who failed as well even ICO rating is high and there are project who succeed even ICO score is low. End of the day, I use it as part of my decision but not as a whole.
I have participated in several ICOs since January and before going in I check out their ratings on some of these ICO rating sites. So far only maybe one or two ICOs have performed well. The several otherICOs have flopped massively upon listing on exchanges. It might be caused by the general bloodbath though.
ico ratings are good but i seldom see them, so i think think that they can not protectvyou from failures and scammmers 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!
i thinknthat there is no reason to not believe in those ratings, but i think that you have to do ypur own researches 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 have participated in several ICOs since January and before going in I check out their ratings on some of these ICO rating sites. So far only maybe one or two ICOs have performed well. The several otherICOs have flopped massively upon listing on exchanges. It might be caused by the general bloodbath though.
Well for me ICO Ratings it can be used as a reference only and it was the last factor in ICO research. Sometimes it was just an information to show if the ICO was good or bad. But we cannot actually say that the ICO was good or bad even if it has a high score on ratings because we still have to use a lot of resources just to make sure that it is really good or not. Mostly ratings based on the info provided by the ICO to specific website. Therefore we can't rely just only on the ratings
All this purchased ratings! There is a huge number of information and proofs when projects and campaigns contact "experts" and suggest to give good marks for their efforts and projects to receive the money and "to say hello" to investors from Bali
A lot of the ratings are not honest 100%. And some are selling the rating. But I still check them and if I find any useful information, I use it to form my own opinion.
I think it can be useful to read opinions of other people but anyway i always try to do my own research before investing.
Right now ico ratings are important for short term because people are investing to raitings not to projects but for long term project is more important.
I do use the ratings as one of my parameters but do not totally bank on the rating. I do still do my research, because at the end, I will be responsible for my actions. Some ratings are just a possible guide.
I don't believe in any rating that can be biased. ICO companies pay ICO rating comapnies for their ratings, so they probably got biased reviews.
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!
ICO ratings is helping us to find a good ICO but the decision will be from us. ICO rating is not totally accurate because they basing to what they see or read on white paper and roadmaps and also to the team. 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!
To my mind, ICO ratings aren't worth what they propose to be. I do not believe in them for the simple reason that i see certain elements of the crypto world becoming like conventional financial institutions now. If you look at the alleged amount exchanges are now charging to list coins. Equally, ICO rating sites and open to being swayed or biased in their rating of ICO's. I tool have been recently stung by two ICO's which seemed very promising to start with but come the end of contributions, things go wrong. I tend to do my research and go with my instincts.
ICO Ratings can be bought by the company but if you research well and don´t use one site for ico ratings its good
No I don't trust them fully, even though I think some of them are still useful, but in general they may be getting paid to promote an ICO or a group of ICOs, and nothing guarantees to you that it won't be a scam also.
I know only two sites with ratings and one of them is an icobench and I very much doubt the correctness of their feedback, but an icodrops good site
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 I believe that although there are a lot of good-looking ico sales that are not successful but I still believe in rating because good does not mean success, I guess they do not appreciate the potential for success, but what they value is team composition, planning and concept they so the assessment has nothing to do with 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!
These are advertising platforms. They do not deceive, but they advertise projects from the best side, as they are paid for advertising. We do not believe all the advertising on TV
I advise you to invest in new crypto projects like Socratus because the new crypto future
Jump to: