I think places where everyone can vote on ICO’s are more trustworthy as well but voting can be manipulated by simple bots so that is not only enough to make it look more credible.
It is however definitely better than this but it needs to show good results first in order to build up a trust first.
Topic: ICOrating - Rating agency for ICO-market - page 8. (Read 11624 times)
Though this service is really needed but i do not trust the source which it is coming from right now because it might even be used to promote scam coins or scam ico.
There are many other services that do this that look better and more trustworthy. I like public people who rate ICOs.
Can you specify? As a matter of comparaison I'd like to know which kind of services exist? And as they say, trust does not exclude control
Many thanks in advance,
Could you please rating Gongxinbao (GXB) Data Exchange?
BTT: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annworlds-first-decentralized-data-marketplace-1813679
ICO Plan: https://ico.gxb.io/download/GXB_Exchange_ICO_Program_v1.0_EN.pdf
Product White Paper: https://ico.gxb.io/download/GXB_Blockchain_White_Paper_v1.2_EN.pdf
Right now GXB has already crowdsale 1249 BTC on yunbi.com
Hello all,
We prepared an Investment Review of Mainstreet Inv.
The project is interesting primarily because it allows users to become investors in the sectors of the world economy, that were previously unavailable to them because of the financial, geographical and professional restrictions. The MI product is a type of a digital share or a digital derivative, which is based on a security portfolio.
In addition, the project attracts the attention due to the a controversial biography of Charlie Shrem - one of the co-founders.
Read more in the report: http://icorating.com/project/35/Mainstreet-Investment
We prepared an Investment Review of Mainstreet Inv.
The project is interesting primarily because it allows users to become investors in the sectors of the world economy, that were previously unavailable to them because of the financial, geographical and professional restrictions. The MI product is a type of a digital share or a digital derivative, which is based on a security portfolio.
In addition, the project attracts the attention due to the a controversial biography of Charlie Shrem - one of the co-founders.
Read more in the report: http://icorating.com/project/35/Mainstreet-Investment
@Icorating, where can we find out more about who is behind your company? Web site has no information on the people or investors involved in the company. It would help a lot to know more about a company asking us to trust their ratings and recommendations.
Thanks.
Thanks.
We have added information about the founders and the team project to the "About" page.
@Icorating, where can we find out more about who is behind your company? Web site has no information on the people or investors involved in the company. It would help a lot to know more about a company asking us to trust their ratings and recommendations.
Thanks.
Thanks.
hey was wondering if you can update the stats on wings, we are over 1.7 million now 1742 btc
we like your activity fairly, and these are fairly nice full reports for the ICO market analysis !
http://icorating.com/
http://icorating.com/
How to subscribe your new reports? Subscribe form doesn't work during all time.
Hello all,
We prepared an Investment Review of one of the most talked about projects in the ICO market today: ‘Chronobank.’ The project is unique in that it was born from a company that has almost 10 years experience in the Australian labour resource/outsourcing market and is now one of the leaders of this segment (quite rare given that today this segment is mostly crypto-driven).
Moreover, Chronobank will issue stable tokens tied to actual macroeconomic indicators, thus attracting the attention of potential investors. Our team assigned the project a ‘Stable +’ ranking in terms of investment attractiveness; it should be noted that the project may be of particular interest to investors focused on long-term investments.
Read more in the report:http://icorating.com/project/23/ChronoBank
We prepared an Investment Review of one of the most talked about projects in the ICO market today: ‘Chronobank.’ The project is unique in that it was born from a company that has almost 10 years experience in the Australian labour resource/outsourcing market and is now one of the leaders of this segment (quite rare given that today this segment is mostly crypto-driven).
Moreover, Chronobank will issue stable tokens tied to actual macroeconomic indicators, thus attracting the attention of potential investors. Our team assigned the project a ‘Stable +’ ranking in terms of investment attractiveness; it should be noted that the project may be of particular interest to investors focused on long-term investments.
Read more in the report:http://icorating.com/project/23/ChronoBank
Great service, especially for people who are poorly versed in crypto.
There was no communication with the incent team before publishing your express report.
Hi,
That's because it was an express report - an experimental format, that we're dropping, since we're not sure that it meets our standards.
We removed our Incent review for the revision and mentioned that in the Incent ANN thread.
We try to communicate with the team of every project that we write a full report about.
Wondering how do you collate your information. You have a question and answer format in the Inchain report, are these questions that your team has put to inchain?
If you intend to maintain a high level of quality, how do you assess the investment potential with a less detailed report.
Hi,If you intend to maintain a high level of quality, how do you assess the investment potential with a less detailed report.
Yes, we try to communicate with the team of every project that we analyze, including Inchain.
Regarding the less detailed reports, we were thinking the same thing, so we’re dropping the express report format, since we're not sure that it meets our standards.
There was no communication with the incent team before publishing your express report.
A huge fan of your reviews here. 
Do many people are inside the icorating team?
Do you have experience with valuation of projects outside of crypto?
Do you have a policy on taking money from the projects you are rating?
Do you update your ratings after reports were published if new information came to light?
What do you think about the golem investor public relations gate?
What do you think about golem working against being added on major exchanges?
Do many people are inside the icorating team?
Do you have experience with valuation of projects outside of crypto?
Do you have a policy on taking money from the projects you are rating?
Do you update your ratings after reports were published if new information came to light?
What do you think about the golem investor public relations gate?
What do you think about golem working against being added on major exchanges?
in its assessment analyze and rate about ico selling
your site is objective or subjective, only make pay advertise can good rate and first placed in your site
if your anlalyze is subjective is bad to follow and read, reference to your site
but is your site is good
your site is objective or subjective, only make pay advertise can good rate and first placed in your site
if your anlalyze is subjective is bad to follow and read, reference to your site
but is your site is good
Wondering how do you collate your information. You have a question and answer format in the Inchain report, are these questions that your team has put to inchain?
If you intend to maintain a high level of quality, how do you assess the investment potential with a less detailed report.
Hi,If you intend to maintain a high level of quality, how do you assess the investment potential with a less detailed report.
Yes, we try to communicate with the team of every project that we analyze, including Inchain.
Regarding the less detailed reports, we were thinking the same thing, so we’re dropping the express report format, since we're not sure that it meets our standards.
Your report for Incent is much less detailed than those of Decent and Inchain. Is there a reason for this?
Hi,
This is an express report - a new format that we’re experimenting with.
Our goal is to cover as much ICOs as possible, but we want to maintain the high level of quality, so we appreciate any feedback.
Wondering how do you collate your information. You have a question and answer format in the Inchain report, are these questions that your team has put to inchain?
If you intend to maintain a high level of quality, how do you assess the investment potential with a less detailed report.
Hey, thank you for the comment. We'll list eGaaS in few days - until Sunday.
You can read about our rating system here: http://icorating.com/rating
You can read about our rating system here: http://icorating.com/rating
I see there are two ico included in kategoty "RISKY"
whether it means cio not recommended or ico do not have many takers?
edit:
I do not see the project in your site you may be interested to review ( eGaaS )
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-egaas-electronic-government-as-a-service-1607749
whether it means cio not recommended or ico do not have many takers?
edit:
I do not see the project in your site you may be interested to review ( eGaaS )
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-egaas-electronic-government-as-a-service-1607749
Jump to: