Topic: Do you trust ICO Rating sites? - page 90. (Read 9124 times)
I don't think I can trust ICO rating sites such as ICO bench or some sht. Some of those things are kinda paid? So, I don't believe in their analysis. And, 4.3 rating, hmm and that 4.3 lead to the fall of people who invested. The ICO was a total crack.
They seem biased to me. A friend of mine who's doing an ICO told me that they paid 10ETH for 5 quality ratings and that's that! I noticed that some ICOs with good project, team, and good social media presence are struggling with getting good reviews.
With all that said, should it still be a factor to look at when investing in ICO?
There always will be a scam or people who will pay money for the good reviews in the internet. As an advise I could give to you, try to make your own research on the project, team who is in charge of ICO, what budget they have and ask some other users what they think about it. With all that said, should it still be a factor to look at when investing in ICO?
I use proven sources of information. There are resources that make money for reuters. but there are independent who make rehearsals based on independent experts. I like icobench.com
If you know that most of the reviews now are paid then why would you remain trusting them.
I guess you have heard on much McAfee was receiving before just to shill and give a good review for a coin.
I guess you have heard on much McAfee was receiving before just to shill and give a good review for a coin.
I do trust them but I think those are just a few of them who were inflicted with greed. Most review I read makes proper sense though there are a few instances where they seem bias.
Sometimes a lot of ICO ratings are correct, but many when a rating site gives a high score but the project fails to achieve a softcap, this in my opinion is reasonable, the most important thing is to focus on the team and read the whitepaper is more intriguing than the reference ICO rating site.
It will depend on the ones who rate the ICO. If the ICO expert or adviser has a good reputation then it seems that the rating he/she gives have a reason to pursue investing on it. For example in ICObench, there are some raters that has a different weight on each rating it means that the greater weight the more trusted the rating is. High expert ratings given by the ICObench are almost successful, not saying those who have lower ratings it doesn't mean that the ICO will be trashed. ICO rating is just a small factor and what is important is the product and how the team do its best to make the ICO stand on the global market.
No I dont trust their rating's and you are right they are so biased ranking those project but most of them didnt succeed on their target and I encounter many of them didnt follow their roadmaps, I also encounter some of their ranked ICO's failed on their project.
If you are really interested to invest on a project it will be better if you conduct your own study dont rely on other people or any top ranking ICO website.
If you are really interested to invest on a project it will be better if you conduct your own study dont rely on other people or any top ranking ICO website.
We should not go forward with any ICO investment with ICO's rating sites comparison as some sites are not trustworthy, paid reviews. We must proper search for ICO for full details, their team, their concept, roadmap, and whitepaper before proceeding with ICO participation.
They seem biased to me. A friend of mine who's doing an ICO told me that they paid 10ETH for 5 quality ratings and that's that! I noticed that some ICOs with good project, team, and good social media presence are struggling with getting good reviews.
With all that said, should it still be a factor to look at when investing in ICO?
With all that said, should it still be a factor to look at when investing in ICO?
Yes, for me those ICO ratings provider is one of the factors to look upon when you scout for good ICOs. You just need to compile and compare each provider's review for a certain ICO that you are interested. By doing that process, you can get a gist of the good points of the project. Next thing you can do is do a manual review yourself of the specifications and compare your review to the ICO ratings provider's results.
It is true that some projects are paying to get a very good review to position themselves in the most anticipated ICOs. That just mean that they have the funds to advertise and have the initiative to market their project further.
The ico rating site can be good information, but you also have to do research on ico that you want to buy. Ico is more risky and you have to be careful in investing.
I trust a branch but furthermore I will do my own research because it only encourages more convincing
I not strongly trust similar ratings, but I look narrowly at the rating of ICO bench. All of them give small project information.
https://i.imgur.com/ObB9iYU.png
I believe in the estimation of the ICO rating if those who rated the ICO were people who were already professional and trustworthy, such as successful ICO advisors.
like the ICO I am currently participating in REDCAB, this ICO has a very good rating from professional advisors
I believe in the estimation of the ICO rating if those who rated the ICO were people who were already professional and trustworthy, such as successful ICO advisors.
like the ICO I am currently participating in REDCAB, this ICO has a very good rating from professional advisors
To evaluate a project people often look at teams, roadmaps, project promoters and project partners. But that does not say much to the success of the project. It can be said that a correct method to decide on investment
Initially coin rating site and coin listing site are legit but nowadays they are only getting the payment and listing them at the top buddy. If you want to invest on the ICO please do not trust this sites and make your investment accordingly bro.
Most of the ICO are scams recent days Hence you need to go with the perfect analysis such as reading white paper and roadmap to understand the legitimacy. Then some people believe campaign manager may be vital role to select the ICO from this forum.
Most of the ICO are scams recent days Hence you need to go with the perfect analysis such as reading white paper and roadmap to understand the legitimacy. Then some people believe campaign manager may be vital role to select the ICO from this forum.
I do trust them but I think those are just a few of them who were inflicted with greed. Most review I read makes proper sense though there are a few instances where they seem bias.
I will focus more on the project's open source code, which I think is more critical.
Because many ICO review sites can use money to change ratings.
Because many ICO review sites can use money to change ratings.
for me sometimes to see comparisons or as a comparison with ICOs that are not on
the ICO rating site, but do not become a reference to every success of every ICO even
though it is on the ICO rating site,
the ICO rating site, but do not become a reference to every success of every ICO even
though it is on the ICO rating site,
Many people write that they do not trust the rating agencies, but recently I trust them only, almost all projects with good ratings consistently collect a soft cap. Probably most investors also trust the ratings.
I think most of them cannot be trusted, some may not have deep knowledge about the ico before rating it
Jump to: