Topic: Enough Now! - CCB Announcement (Read 1587 times)

I meant they may charge coin makers for the privilege of getting rated. And that is dangerous territory.

Actually, if they charged the users for it, it would be a good thing.

I wonder if ratings could be wholly or partially calculated using a defined algorithm. Take the humans out of the loop and just use market data.

Actually, if they charged the users for it, it would be a good thing.

Back in tha day, the bond ratings agencies were honest. They were honest because they were paid by the bond buyers: they realized that pump games or naivete would hurt the very people that were paying them. Said investors had no qualms about taking their business elsewhere, so if a rating agency had even a minor oops - let alone the fustercluck that was revealed in '08 - its pocketbook got whacked.

What changed? The revenue stream. Around the 1980s or so, the ratings agencies began collecting their pay from the bond issuers. Now you can see why their eyes became starrier and rainbow-filled! If an agency was too skeptical, the issuer paying the bills would take his business elsewhere. There was a cultural lag and concern for the brand, but eventually the ratings agencies became as compromised as the research departments of financial institutions with corporate-finance departments.

So...if an honest and reputable altcoin rating service came along that was financed totally by buyers of altcoins, they'd have to be pro-buyer. Every buyer they get into trouble adds to the risk of them going tarts-up.

Anyway, I believe the exchanges may be arranging something like this anyway? Or some group is. I recall the NobleCoin dev commenting on some groups forming as a way to rate coins. If they charge for it, it's bad news.

I think if people want to invest in coins called rapecoin, scamcoin and Fuckcoin then let them. If you are going to make an website rating all the different coins then sure but I don't think Bitcointalk should be regulated like this. I've seen the threads of these particular coins and I was a bit the same at first but then realized that I really don't care because it's up to each individual to make up their own mind. Many new people will start with Bitcoin and coming here I doubt their first choice would be a coin called rapecoin or scamcoin and if they did invest in them, it is up to them.  

Satoshi started Bitcoin based on some forum post! This is not about someone needing the skillset to start something like this. It is a person actually being proactive to start something like this.
Problem here is the media landscape has groomed us to not trust individuals anymore thus having to trust in institutions it is a fallacy and its very point is to keep us from banding together and that is why we get this heavy paranoia in here about scammers when there is little proof from anyone that there is in fact any scam going forward! My suggestion is try and keep this to what it is..an attempt to round up some like minded mature individuals to help setup something that can be beneficial for this space..don't ruin that and twist it into your paranoias, misconceptions and warped view on reality!

Today i announce CCB (Crypro Certification Board)

The board will review every old as well as new coin submitted on the basis of innovation, dedication, and future ideas for real world applications.

Thank you so much for your help. I really need someone to tell me Herpes coin is crap.



Oh this may be unrelated but can someone please tell me the difference between my ass and elbow?

And what is your background and why do you feel you are qualified to start this type of group?

As stated by someone else, if you want distinguished members here, you may have slim pickings if you want honest appraisals. Many distinguished people here are 'distinguished' for their bad behavior .. the same people who formed that shitcoin killing group. And the same people who have scammed and cheated people here with their shitcoins, or have taken part in their own shady dealings.

And forum moderators barely show up here at all, as from what I can see. Normal moderated forums would have removed coins like rapecoin as soon as they were posted -- both for moral reasons, and legal reasons.

Sad as it is to say, this place is not the place to look for honest members who can fairly review coins. You'll basically end up with scammers reviewing other coins from scammers.

Anyway, I believe the exchanges may be arranging something like this anyway? Or some group is. I recall the NobleCoin dev commenting on some groups forming as a way to rate coins. If they charge for it, it's bad news. If free, and if the members are professionally organized (meaning not based on some forum post), I guess it could be better than nothing.

So,

Today i announce CCB (Crypro Certification Board)

The board will review every old as well as new coin submitted on the basis of innovation, dedication, and future ideas for real world applications. Based on this review, certifications will be awarded to these coins. People will be educated to invest their time and money in CCB Certified coins only.

I request moderators and distinguished members to come forward and start sketching the workings of the board.

We really need this

You mean the rating agencies who facilitated the last economic depression by labeling junk Class AAA. Or maybe you mean rating agencies like Egan-Jones who was the only honest agency who got thrown out for a technicality on some paper work. Yeah please more regulation that's exactly what decentralized digital currency that attempts to avoid government politically motivated BS.

We need people to bring news of CRypto together from people who know what they are talking about. They can review new coins etc just like any new technology gets reviewed. So I'm not suggesting some decentralized power I'm just suggesting that there is an opportunity in the market for a better blog, website, news site that really brings it all together. And not just focused on the big players like Bitcoin.

Within the Wall Street investment community there are various rating agencies, such as Fitch, S&P and Moody's.  They rate many of the financial products, such as bonds.

There are many services in the crypto currency community and there have been many scams, hacking and thefts.  New users have fallen victim to all manner of fraud.

There would be much benefit from having multiple, competing ratings organizations for the many crypto currency services.  These organizations could rate all the services from exchanges, online wallets, markets, software developers, newsletters, hardware manufacturers and the coins themselves.

Crypto-currencies are not regulated by any government.  One of the points of Bitcoin and other currencies to be free of government regulation, but the free market can regulate itself.  Even in the anarchist dream of having no government, there would still be schools, police and fire departments, but they are privately operated.  Let there be privately operated ratings organizations; more than one so any bias from one group can be counterbalanced by the others.



Such a board could do its research and provide professionally written and well documented reports (with many footnotes, links and references) using their own standards for what constitutes a good or bad coin.  It will still be up to the user to determine if the board knows what they are talking about.  If a user could read three well reports from three different rating boards, he/she could hopefully make up his/her mind and have an informed decision not to invest in an IPO of a user with an activity of 3.  

These boards would have their hands full scouring the internet for all the information for their reports.