Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 49. (Read 6947 times)
ICO ratings do not really guarantee that we choose a good ICO, as you can say, ICO with a good rating sometimes fails to reach their soft limits. For me, the ICO rating is just the other reference, not the main reason for choosing a good ICO. I suggest that you do research by yourself.
The ICO rating sites are nearly worthless. I have seen scams that were easily detectable being given positive reviews by ICO rating sites. You should only trust your own due diligence.
I have been reading an article recently about paid ICO ratings. It doesn't cost a lot fo bitcoin to get five stars on most of the ratings sites.
I just believe that part of the indicators, probably the ICO will spend money to beautify those indicators. I believe that you must evaluate many other factors to make the decision to choose your own potential ICO.
With the ICO rating system, I think it is easier to understand and read about the quality of ICO from the lowest to the highest. And from there, it becomes easier for us to know the position of ICO that we are currently following. In addition, we also become more aware of what strategy is more appropriate for us to do now.
some websites are credible like ICObench, it's where I get most of my bounty now a days. They also give what the company is targeting with the hard and soft cap, also the bounty counts, when it started and when it will end
I believe ICO rating, although sometimes the result is not imaginary, but they helped us filter out a lot of scams.
I agree; not 100% accurate, but still helpful in exposing scam projects. This July, I will be moving to menlo.one as soon as its token sale launches and platform goes live. Menlo.one enables us to view ICOs, join/make discussions as well as reviews, buy tokens and manage our portfolio. I still need to do a little bit more research, but their CEO seemed sincere and knowledgeable about their project. Any thoughts about it?
I think sites like ICObench are just giving ICO ratings, but some of those ratings are not entirely correct, and there may be some insider trading. But I think it's always good for us to have another rating site because the final decision is in our own hands.
Yes it will help us fot the reference before participating in the campaign. And I think these ratings can be trusted and if you have all your opinion and a lot of free time, you can study each project independently by your criteria.
Yes, i believe in ratings by Icobench.com, because there are a lot of professionals who really know which of the project will be very useful in future.
for now I still believe in ico ratings, because I still use ico ratings as a benchmark that ico is good or not, but in support with other data also like teams, the number of sales and whitepaper
I like the sites that provide different ratings, because it is very much easier to work with statistics. personally, I use this site.
https://foundico.com/ru/ it helps me a lot when I want to choose a particular project.
https://foundico.com/ru/ it helps me a lot when I want to choose a particular project.
they are simply ratings sites, you do not need to blame them if your contributions are burned out, you yourself should evaluate the project in full and fully, see the team, goals
Its better to do your own research because I am sure that most of ICO that has a good ratings there are advertisement and not based on the truths. They pay to looks like a very good ICO.
Hello! I don't believe in any ICO ratings, experts, analytics and in any information which I can not check!
I think the ratings are needed for each project, but I saw a lot of projects with ratings of 5/5 that did not even earn soft cap. It turns out that they do not always reflect the real state of affairs.
Of course, the ratings on these sites do not reflect anything, because these ratings can be purchased. And this is not a secret. It is better not to look at these ratings at all, the real ratings of projects should be in everyone's head.
I think the ratings are needed for each project, but I saw a lot of projects with ratings of 5/5 that did not even earn soft cap. It turns out that they do not always reflect the real state of affairs.
Can be a help but they can not be trusted. You need to do your own researchers.
For me its good to use ICO rating site as referrence onlyand not totally depend for what my decusion if it good ico or not. Then after I see the ratings I follow to do research for landing page, team verifying, community check and product analyzing. I want eveything clear in an ICO. No hide details and be transparrent for the development
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!
For me I only believe those ico rating sites with credibility and is well known like icobench. The most important thing for me is reading the whitepaper and participating ico that I find interesting and has potential. The ratings thing for me doesn't really matter so much at all. 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!
Jump to: