Agree. It is really hard to find reliable ICO review sites. And if you would like to get some insider view, you probably need to pay for it. I recommend cryptobrifing.com to you. It seems to be a legit site to provide high quality reviews.
Pretty hard bro! Pretty hard!! I would rather do my own proper digging on any project by investing the team, checking all that I need to know if there is a product or not before even considering going through any other information. The rating website are after the monetary aspect and as long as that is in play, they care less about the investors and the community at large and they are only good when they are new, just wait for them once they become a household name in the community. 
Topic: How do you screen ICO projects, what do you look at? - page 3. (Read 503 times)
These ICO rating sites are everything else but rating sites. Most of them are paid for featured spots. Experts are not experts. Some bots give random ratings. Awful service. Don't use them. Zero value in them.
Obviously! They would rather collect those huge bucks to get their projects out there to their trusted members without considering the long run effect of it. Now, a lot of investors do not really care much about ICO rating websites and will rather go through the necessary details and research by themselves before they even invest in anything. It is absurd that what was created to help the community at the end just have the motive to get popular for the monetary gain. Not saying the monetary gain is bad, but at least it makes sense to always keep integrity in check.
For me first thing to do if you're looking for a good and reliable ICO project you should read and seek also some information on their ann thread 'cause all of the feedback of ICO will be found on it. and also for me to determine which is classified i'm also visiting their site's , to figure it out how old the site's ,cause most of the ICO nowadays is fresh and not trustworthy .so if you're looking legit ico you should visit also their sites and ann thread 'cause that is the easy way to determine if its good or not.
yes I agree, one of them by visiting ANN thread them by asking the project development plan, so that developers can open a dialog with potential investors. In addition, we can see the future prospects of ICO by understanding whitepaper that has been provided, because the whitepaper is the main benchmark for potential investors to be able to invest in it.
It is definitely difficult to choose a good ICO. Yes, we have website which includes reviews from different perspectives. However, this can never be trusted. This can be made of the member of the team to attract investors. So, the best thing to do ks analyze their website and other related articles about them before investing. Be wise!
Agree. It is really hard to find reliable ICO review sites. And if you would like to get some insider view, you probably need to pay for it. I recommend cryptobrifing.com to you. It seems to be a legit site to provide high quality reviews.
Yeah i will agree that we can't get easily to choose the best ICO because aside from the manyy ICO project exist but they already upgrade their reliable project to make as attarctive to joined. 
For me, it is the whitepaper (not the entire thing though, at first). I read the executive summary/abstract. If I find it interesting, I look at the team behind the project. I have to be able to verify the teams profile for example a LinkedIn profile for starters. Then I look at the project timeline (stages) how they intend to run, milestones etc. the roadmap helps in this case. Finally, if they have added financial projects, which can verified by a third party finance person, then I will give it a short.
Many of you are asking this question. Many of you spend hours researching new ICO projects, reading forums trying to find the proper information, get the knowledge and make the right move. I am sure you are already aware that it is not the most efficient way. It takes time and all of us have to do the same ground work over and over again separately.
Of course there are rating websites, which tell us what the best ICOs should be but after reviewing 120 projects myself I had very different views on most of the ICO rated as the best ones.
Of course you can discuss with others on the forum but almost no one there does exhaustive and systematic research on ICOs, so lot of info but may not be relevant or very much biased by one’s opinion.
ICO investors need to protect themselves and unfortunately, ICOs are still largely unregulated so we cannot expect that somebody else will search for and punish “bad apples”.
So we decided crypto community needs a proper Due Diligence project based on the knowledge of you all. We would like to build it from the ground up and we are open to any comments, suggestions and ideas. However first we need to know, how you guys actually screen ICO projects, what you look at and what you maybe neglect. So that we can focus our attention on those things. If you fill in this survey you will help us understand exactly that. We are doing this for the community, to create better, accurate and independent ICO reviews.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
Let’s discuss first how you screen ICO projects and what exactly you look at!
In the very beginning I estimate the project site. Then I go to their social networks and watch how many subscribers. Next, I look when the accounts in social networks have been created. After that I read their book and then I make an input on this project.
Many of you are asking this question. Many of you spend hours researching new ICO projects, reading forums trying to find the proper information, get the knowledge and make the right move. I am sure you are already aware that it is not the most efficient way. It takes time and all of us have to do the same ground work over and over again separately.
Of course there are rating websites, which tell us what the best ICOs should be but after reviewing 120 projects myself I had very different views on most of the ICO rated as the best ones.
Of course you can discuss with others on the forum but almost no one there does exhaustive and systematic research on ICOs, so lot of info but may not be relevant or very much biased by one’s opinion.
ICO investors need to protect themselves and unfortunately, ICOs are still largely unregulated so we cannot expect that somebody else will search for and punish “bad apples”.
So we decided crypto community needs a proper Due Diligence project based on the knowledge of you all. We would like to build it from the ground up and we are open to any comments, suggestions and ideas. However first we need to know, how you guys actually screen ICO projects, what you look at and what you maybe neglect. So that we can focus our attention on those things. If you fill in this survey you will help us understand exactly that. We are doing this for the community, to create better, accurate and independent ICO reviews.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
Let’s discuss first how you screen ICO projects and what exactly you look at!
My way of choosing an ICO is very common to the others in which first i will read the whitepaper and check the CEO and the rest of the team profile thru the google if their listed records on their profiles are all true. Then i will read carefully of their products to ensure that it is not fake and to see if it is a promising investment. Then the last thing is their activities thru twitter and facebook to see if they are really working for their projects.
For me first thing to do if you're looking for a good and reliable ICO project you should read and seek also some information on their ann thread 'cause all of the feedback of ICO will be found on it. and also for me to determine which is classified i'm also visiting their site's , to figure it out how old the site's ,cause most of the ICO nowadays is fresh and not trustworthy .so if you're looking legit ico you should visit also their sites and ann thread 'cause that is the easy way to determine if its good or not.
I look at MVP and team
I read a lot of different ICOs here, on bitcointalk, and usually one of 5 ICOs, that people suggested here is really good.
Help me to understand how the ICO investors choose and monitor the ICOs they invest in. If you ever invested in at least one ICO fill in this questionnaire (below). Our aim is to build community due diligence initiative to screen the ICO projects for the community and help you decide which project to support.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
Question no. 2.
When you already invested in an ICO, how do you monitor your holdings?
How do you follow-up? Do you follow the social media, updates, do you follow whether they go accoridng to the roadmap?
Let me know.
Help me to understand how the ICO investors choose and monitor the ICOs they invest in. If you ever invested in at least one ICO fill in this questionnaire (below). Our aim is to build community due diligence initiative to screen the ICO projects for the community and help you decide which project to support.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
When you already invested in an ICO, how do you monitor your holdings?
How do you follow-up? Do you follow the social media, updates, do you follow whether they go accoridng to the roadmap?
Let me know.
Help me to understand how the ICO investors choose and monitor the ICOs they invest in. If you ever invested in at least one ICO fill in this questionnaire (below). Our aim is to build community due diligence initiative to screen the ICO projects for the community and help you decide which project to support.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
Those rating websites are full of it and completely unreliable. I always start out checking how much they want to raise cause if it is too much I can move on without wasting time reading everything. If they raise an amount I can stand with then I start looking at their team, if I don't like it then I move on to another ICO. If I like the team I start reading their problem solution or whatever their USP is and then everything else.
Most of those rating websites are busy looking for traffic and some ICOs to pay them before they even add them and it has turned to money making venture than it being a community service. So many of them have been known to list scams before and then end up deleting the rating once they confirm it to be scam and that sucks. It is good the OP is coming up with something like this and I hope they do not end up like one of those rating sites.OP's suggestion is a very nice one and one that is absolutely needed for investors that are lazy to do proper research on their own. I feel sometimes, a lot of people look for high level of information when they should concentrate on the most important things first and that is where it gets bad. The team in particular is one that is very important to dig up first and if you have that planned out coupled with some other factors to check out, that would be nice.
Thank you Rickadone, I (OP) have a research background (its my official job actually) so we have high standards on integrity and since money has never been any incentive to me I will make sure that is kept also while the project is being developed. I very much appreciate your comments but if you want to contribute a bit more to this initiative, please fill in my survey. In that way I can collect data systematically and I can prove what investors are neglecting the most and on the other hand what aspects they really pay attention to. The more data the better basis for the project. So please if you havent done yet so, just spare 4 minutes of your time with the survey below.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
Thanks, you are all awesome.
Those rating websites are full of it and completely unreliable. I always start out checking how much they want to raise cause if it is too much I can move on without wasting time reading everything. If they raise an amount I can stand with then I start looking at their team, if I don't like it then I move on to another ICO. If I like the team I start reading their problem solution or whatever their USP is and then everything else.
Most of those rating websites are busy looking for traffic and some ICOs to pay them before they even add them and it has turned to money making venture than it being a community service. So many of them have been known to list scams before and then end up deleting the rating once they confirm it to be scam and that sucks. It is good the OP is coming up with something like this and I hope they do not end up like one of those rating sites.OP's suggestion is a very nice one and one that is absolutely needed for investors that are lazy to do proper research on their own. I feel sometimes, a lot of people look for high level of information when they should concentrate on the most important things first and that is where it gets bad. The team in particular is one that is very important to dig up first and if you have that planned out coupled with some other factors to check out, that would be nice.
It is done same way we do it for stocks: find the area you are competent in, do a research...
Many of you are asking this question. Many of you spend hours researching new ICO projects, reading forums trying to find the proper information, get the knowledge and make the right move. I am sure you are already aware that it is not the most efficient way. It takes time and all of us have to do the same ground work over and over again separately.
Of course there are rating websites, which tell us what the best ICOs should be but after reviewing 120 projects myself I had very different views on most of the ICO rated as the best ones.
Of course you can discuss with others on the forum but almost no one there does exhaustive and systematic research on ICOs, so lot of info but may not be relevant or very much biased by one’s opinion.
ICO investors need to protect themselves and unfortunately, ICOs are still largely unregulated so we cannot expect that somebody else will search for and punish “bad apples”.
So we decided crypto community needs a proper Due Diligence project based on the knowledge of you all. We would like to build it from the ground up and we are open to any comments, suggestions and ideas. However first we need to know, how you guys actually screen ICO projects, what you look at and what you maybe neglect. So that we can focus our attention on those things. If you fill in this survey you will help us understand exactly that. We are doing this for the community, to create better, accurate and independent ICO reviews.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
Let’s discuss first how you screen ICO projects and what exactly you look at!
Most people will give you the same answer,such as concept project, road map, hard cap and allocation. But I believe people will not do that anymore, they will replace their trust depend experience only. Experience built from practice and fix the mistakes, nothing else. Learning by doing is more better than wasting time collect ICO information or follow signal. Maybe you're not agree with me but that's what I see and I do that until now.
But Yanto do you really have time to do all that screening by yourself as the number of projects increases? While other people are doing exactly the same? Isn't that double spending of precious time?
Many of you are asking this question. Many of you spend hours researching new ICO projects, reading forums trying to find the proper information, get the knowledge and make the right move. I am sure you are already aware that it is not the most efficient way. It takes time and all of us have to do the same ground work over and over again separately.
Of course there are rating websites, which tell us what the best ICOs should be but after reviewing 120 projects myself I had very different views on most of the ICO rated as the best ones.
Of course you can discuss with others on the forum but almost no one there does exhaustive and systematic research on ICOs, so lot of info but may not be relevant or very much biased by one’s opinion.
ICO investors need to protect themselves and unfortunately, ICOs are still largely unregulated so we cannot expect that somebody else will search for and punish “bad apples”.
So we decided crypto community needs a proper Due Diligence project based on the knowledge of you all. We would like to build it from the ground up and we are open to any comments, suggestions and ideas. However first we need to know, how you guys actually screen ICO projects, what you look at and what you maybe neglect. So that we can focus our attention on those things. If you fill in this survey you will help us understand exactly that. We are doing this for the community, to create better, accurate and independent ICO reviews.
https://tilburglawschool.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3sCWmLd0wY1OK3P
Let’s discuss first how you screen ICO projects and what exactly you look at!
Most people will give you the same answer,such as concept project, road map, hard cap and allocation. But I believe people will not do that anymore, they will replace their trust depend experience only. Experience built from practice and fix the mistakes, nothing else. Learning by doing is more better than wasting time collect ICO information or follow signal. Maybe you're not agree with me but that's what I see and I do that until now.
The ICO review sites filled with all kinds of fraud and are cheating overall. I do not trust any of them on the net.
Looking at team members, advisory, and partners. reputable people in the circle, the roadmap, whether the concept is feasible and lastly the reviews, community members, and the white paper.
Only some sites were having a lot of credibilities and did so many audits and community vote before it will be listed in the ico list. Some said the majority of ico sites review was getting paid from the fraudsters to promote the project on the platform. But it makes sense for me. Honestly even cointelegraph doing the same thing with it to earn more money from the fraudsters. Looking at team members, advisory, and partners. reputable people in the circle, the roadmap, whether the concept is feasible and lastly the reviews, community members, and the white paper.
I did the survey.
I find the standard things the most important, but often also take the hype factor into account. Also, high risk ICO's could be very worth the investment once listed. But usually I invest what I can miss, and don't really mind missing it.
I find the standard things the most important, but often also take the hype factor into account. Also, high risk ICO's could be very worth the investment once listed. But usually I invest what I can miss, and don't really mind missing it.
Jump to: