Topic: ICO ratings sites comparison (Read 327 times)

thanks for giving me the good choices. Now so many projects of fire island so I think to look carefully

It is clear that the subject does not really inspire confidence... When will a charter of good conduct?

Each ico rating platform or website do have their corresponding criteria as a observed on most of them and the fact there are sites which do have accept payments from other projects just to place them into the top which is always been a shady act and not to be surprised of. This is why i dont really trust up these review sites because anytime it can really be rigged up.

Just appreciate on what do op put up considering that this is already a 7 month old thread and you can beside suggest to add on the site you have mentioned on here.

Your list is incomplete without putting icodrops,  I so much like their review than every other ones you've posted,  just take a good look at what they've got to offer, others are cool though

Guys, what are your criteria to determine the credibility of an ICO review platform?

https://thecoinradar.com/ is another great resource for in-depth ICO reviews.

I suggest you to check our listing page : https://cryptocreed.com/best-ico-list/

I use icomark, icodrops and icobench reviews.

I usually watch ICO here https://tokenoid.io/, there are not so many ICOs here now and it is easier to compare different projects now. Plus I like the design it is quite simple and still looks good

Ratings now is somewhat fake, not totally fake as in 50% and above, sometime ratings is base also on voting on a site using your email address, some air drops are using this way to gain more voters on their side like cast and create account on this link to have 20-50 of our tokens or they likes....

You have made one very interesting stats. Good job!

I always choose ICO by rating the site Icobench.
This service is used by many investors. Special attention should be paid to experts who evaluate the project. If the rating of the expert goes up-this assessment can be trusted. All good luck and profit

Hi!

I recently made some similar research of ICO rating websites, including how aggressive they are.

For the chart below I examined the distribution of “positive” and “negative” ratings across services.

For “Score-type” ratings converted to 0-100 scale:
- ≥ 80 of 100 = “Positive”
- < 40 of 100 = “Negative”
For “Grade-type” ratings:
- “A” or “Positive” or “High” = “Positive”
- Lowest letter grade or “Negative” or “Low” = “Negative”

https://pyatakov.com/blog/state-of-ico-ratings-in-2018-part-2/chart_7.png
(BTW is there a way to upload image to forum?)

Full article is available in my blog:
https://pyatakov.com/blog/state-of-ico-ratings-in-2018-part-2/

Apologies - I was hoping for a little user feedback on a free-to-use tool from knowledgeable people in the sector - Will refrain from linking in future.

Giving merits is not at all good without knowing a proper thing about the company. You need to find a lot of things whether the company has potential to satisfy the investors. At least you need to have some confidential team in order to inquire them in the background.

well
good research for you , i know that seems hardwork,
but , i just believe on social media like telegram .
if they have a huge members like 10k ++
it's will be promissing
i know that just stupid or maybe simple review.
but it's still work for me.

You have made one very interesting stats. Good job!

Does it mean that ICORating are giving false high rating to ICO's what should have at least negative/warning notes?

I see many newbies used the other threads to promote this service or project. I am not sure why this is happening from the past few months. I have quoted back and warned many newbies still.
This seems as a issue or taken that he does not know that he is right or wrong.
Please keep this one as a last time and you will not repeat this issue at all back.

We have just launched https://icoformula.com - a platform that rates and ranks ICO's across multiple data points and metrics. It is algorithm based and takes into account past performance on now trading tokens that have provided high ROI, and takes into account social/community coverage 

I admit I can't cope with all ICOs coming out here on bitcointalk. I need to weed out the worst and drill down on a few promising ones. That’s why I’m looking for a ICO ratings site, but there are quite a few and I don’t know which one I can trust. I'm afraid many of these ICO review sites are just bounty hunters.

That’s why I made a simple comparison. I looked at the reviews published at ICORating, Cryptorated, GlobalHalo and Crypto Briefing in 100 days (from Oct 1 2017 till Jan 8 2018) and counted total reviews, average rating, count of negative and positive reviews. Of course each site has its own rating system. I have “normalized” them all to a scale from 1 to 10 so as to compare apples to apples.

Here are the results:

ICORating
Total reviews: 52
Average rating: 7.81
Positive ratings (positive): 28.9%
Negative ratings (risky and risky+): 9.6%

Cryptorated
Total reviews: 33
Average rating: 5.75
Positive ratings (3.5 or more): 6.1%
Negative ratings (2.5 or less): 21.2%

CryptoBriefing
Total reviews: 24
Average rating: 6.95
Positive ratings (above 80): 41.7%
Negative ratings (60 or less): 25%

GlobalHalo
Total reviews: 18
Average rating: 7.7
Positive ratings (above 80%): 38.9%
Negative ratings (below 70%): 22.2%

ICORating are the most productive, posting a review every other day. I like their reviews, however they seem a bit optimistic with only 1 negative review in 10. Crypto Briefing and GlobalHalo post many reviews that are either positive or negative, with Crypto Briefing a bit more on the critical side. Cryptorated seems more tentative, with most ratings in the golden middle, but their count of positive ratings is the lowest, which is a good thing.

I made my conclusions, but I don’t pretend they are valid for anyone. That’s why I decided to share my data so you can copy my spreadsheet and tweak it:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/196mqLLwXcDaxSP4Gglq3WDIoajxP1LIRWG3ySlQEDFs/edit?usp=sharing