Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 76. (Read 6947 times)
You can trust such ratings, this will reduce the probability of scam, but no one will tell exactly which project will be scam, and which project will not. Ico is always a big risk
Of course there are good ratings with analytics and a serious approach to this issue, but I'm not sure that I can trust each of them. Hardly. I believe only my own strategy and my approach to such issues. Good projects are not so much and choosing from them is not too difficult even with minimal efforts
I don't believe in ICO ratings, and I still prefer to do my own research before investing in any ICO sale. ICO ratings are payed by ICO developers to have a good rating on their site that is why it is not reliable.
I believe in some of them not to all. for me most trustworthy are icobench.com and www.icoguide.com
I think ICO's rating can only be used for reference. After all, the ICO risk itself is huge. So still rely on their own analysis. If you say that rating agencies have insider. Then you will become a pig.
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 think I am believe on that ICO rating. They gave rating must be because they already studied about that ICO and the project and learning about whitepapers. Maybe some overated on rating and some dont but its needed to guide us to pick good ICO
some ico rating is not to be a good ICO benchmark or not,
one of the ico rating like ICO Bench
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*4TRF-uqSXAaWZW2tocppXw.png
https://icobench.com/
the website can only be used as a reference and support in the selection of a project selection
one of the ico rating like ICO Bench
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*4TRF-uqSXAaWZW2tocppXw.png
https://icobench.com/
the website can only be used as a reference and support in the selection of a project selection
I only trust ICObench and ICOdrops, in my experience ratings are placed there deservedly. But on these sites, projects can pay a premium account, pay attention to it too.
Oh sure. Thanks to this rating, I found several projects that brought me a good profit. Now I turned my attention to REMME. The project provides password protection for users. This is a promising theme for the development of the project. I think it will be interesting
ICO ranking websites are just one of your references to evaluate the ICo. It’s possible they can be paid for a good review.
You must do your own research. Check out the team and credentials, Whitepaper, and other details on ICO. You can join the discussion here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.35614412
You must do your own research. Check out the team and credentials, Whitepaper, and other details on ICO. You can join the discussion here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.35614412
I don't really trust the sites that put the ratings of ICO projects. Anyway, I always go myself and look at the site of the project in which I want to invest, or take part in the bounty of the company.
I don't trust the ICO ratings too because there is a possibility that those ratings were just paid. Those experts that give an opinion are paid to give the ICO a high rating to attract more investors. Of course, not all of them are biased but we should always be skeptic and do our own research if we wanted to invest in an ICO. We can see that by reading the opinion of the people in the forum, you can check how they answer in the telegram community and then check the on-going developments of the project in their sites. Participating in forums, conferences, seminars and meetings of the team has a big weight for me in choosing the right ICO to invest in.
This is absolutely right. Popular ICO rating sites aren't a complete garbage after all as we can use it as one of our basis in rating a project. We will have our own judgement too by reading all the information and team's backgrounds. Even popular sites like Forbes and Yahoo can be sponsored too but it may also help as those sites will never really risk much on doubtful projects. Partnerships and conferences are the most impressive ones also for me as they have the chance presenting themselves and their project into vast savvy tech companies and personalities.
Early days i have faith on this ICO Review sites. But time show those review & their experts are just only doing the ICO PROMOTING.
Example "cylinders.io". IN icobench site they have a very good ratings.(you can see on both sites) but it becomes totally worthless.
so before trusting these sites better to do your own research.
cheers!
Example "cylinders.io". IN icobench site they have a very good ratings.(you can see on both sites) but it becomes totally worthless.
so before trusting these sites better to do your own research.
cheers!
Yes, I believe in some websites that provided the ICO ratings of the project. with this we can have the information that is more accurate.
In addition, there are some ICO ratings websites that are not accurate or they haven`t updated maybe they`re just tired.
In addition, there are some ICO ratings websites that are not accurate or they haven`t updated maybe they`re just tired.
I don't really trust the sites that put the ratings of ICO projects. Anyway, I always go myself and look at the site of the project in which I want to invest, or take part in the bounty of the company.
I don't trust the ICO ratings too because there is a possibility that those ratings were just paid. Those experts that give an opinion are paid to give the ICO a high rating to attract more investors. Of course, not all of them are biased but we should always be skeptic and do our own research if we wanted to invest in an ICO. We can see that by reading the opinion of the people in the forum, you can check how they answer in the telegram community and then check the on-going developments of the project in their sites. Participating in forums, conferences, seminars and meetings of the team has a big weight for me in choosing the right ICO to invest in.
I will Choose Quality than Quantity.. ICO's depends on the company paying the advertisement. But for me reading some blogs will boost my confident if i'm gonna invest on this coin or not.
I don't believe much in ico ratings site, it's just one of references, i always do my own research on the project i want to invest in. But i think ico ratings site like ICOBench is good, you can check the summary and KYC project of the token .
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 follow the ICOBench for the expert rating on the ICO projects and that are beneficial for me because on there I am getting satisfaction and not much of the ICOs are failed from there where expert rate them at better position. 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!
Only a few may go for scam or go to fail but they are much lower in number which is negligible for the investors who not invest much in ICO projects and who invest in multiple projects in little amounts.
Yes I do. Most ICO ratings get into details of the project to make their own analysis. Some even do background checks on team members before rating them. ICO ratings are helpful in judgment of a project
ICO ratings certainly plays a role to most investors. I would prefer to check those project with higher ratings first before even considering those with lower ratings.
Most times, what happens when i comes to the rating of ICO by some of these rating sites is that, money is being paid by some of these projects. So, the more the money paid, the higher the rating. That is why we might sometimes be surprised at the results we see
Jump to: