Topic: Do you believe in ICO Ratings? - page 77. (Read 6947 times)
I think the ICO ratings are good enough for recognizing good projects to join. I check Icobench and icorating sites regularly and compare the ratings. But I make sure I have read about the project enough and get continuous response from the team and I check the feasibility of the project too. Ratings just confirms my findings.
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 give it some thought and consideration, but to say that I base my decisions on which ICO to actually invest or join in, I don't. Although the comments and reviews posted there are actually from verified and seasoned sources, at the end of the day, your investment is on your hands. If you would have another person decide what's best for you would be improper, especially when it will lead to a loss when the only person you can blame is yourself.
I believe in ICO ratings, where author argue his rating. Also everybody must have access to his previous marks and make rating of his predictions. If the predictions coincide with the price of token after ICO- I believe to his next predictions
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 ico rating is not really a main reference, maybe just as a reference to see a project, to ensure a good project we still have to see from other references such as website, whitepaper, team and others related to the project. 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 really believe in some of them, it is possible they can pay them to give a project a high rating, I prefer the rating I conducted by myself, if my findings and research agrees with their own rating then i will accept it else, I won't accept it.
I read the rankings from time to time but I am not totally dependent on them and prefer to compare the various sources. It's even better to do your own project analysis, so at least there'll be no one to blame except yourself in case of ICO failure.
I think that these can be trusted, but still you need to look at the portal and the site, then look at the manager who leads.
Not at all, but sometimes Yes! The reason behind for not is, i see many cases in ICO rating when they gave 9/10 to a project but that project doesn't get success and failed. I think ICOrating are only a reference factors when we will invest on a project. According to me, 30% yes and 70% no. The best way to find which project is best in ICO is do our own research!
I do not trust, I just focus on how the ico can run and the concept that runs can work well. now in rating can not affect the sales of a lot of ico that has a good rating but can not meet the target to serve as one of the successful ico.
I think a lot of ico ratings are bought and not true, so there is no particular sense to rely on them.
believe it with your own analysis results only and not based on the site. the site as it was only used as a reference only and is not necessarily true. sometimes on the site, there is a less good but sales success or otherwise. so the assessment of the site that is not entirely true.
You need to understand how the rating is given before trust it or not. Some ratings site just use a check list to see whether certain items like telegram group, whitepaper exist or not. These are far less useful then sites that actually trying to understand what the project and potential is, such as crushcrypto and in some case even some youtuber are better. But it's best using ratings as reference, some youtuber could be ranking the coins as the best ICO because they already negotiated presale discount and invested a lot of money in it. End of day we make our own decisions. Personal opinions not financial advice 
While those sites are becoming increasingly popular, I still believe that they are no substitute to good research by the investor. Remember their recommendation often comes with a disclaimer statement which means they aren't exempt from mistakes too.
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.
ICO ratings are not to be trusted. Most of them are selling ratings for fees and the analyses are not very deep and the most important, they are not helpful.
For me personally, the ratings of Iso programs are complete nonsense.it is impossible to know until the end will be good or bad ISo And who creates these tables.The same conventional Iso participants who know no more than us!
I do not really trust them because it's a game for the public, and maybe those ratings have already been bought by someone.
Same ICO can be differently rated in different websites. Rating depends on people doing it and a well rated project is not necessarily a profitable project.
ICO Ratings can be very useful and beneficial in providing a general overview of the ICO, some of these sights are quite accurate, but not all tell the true story and potential of the ICO, remember, these are independent sights that might be influenced, so before you put your trust in them and use their take as a guide to invest, carryout your own research, it will be more helpful you knowing where to put your moneys
I can not say specifically. My opinion diverges in half. One part thinks that after all it's worth to trust a site with a rating, but on the other, I understand that the rating can be easily bought from dishonest appraisers.
Jump to: