I would be amazing at rating ICO's. Heres the real problem though
1. MOST people are terrible investors, and the people who won't admit it and doge a finanical advsior buy shit projects. If you only post HQ ico's or projects, the terrible investors will be less willing to invest. Most good ICO's are extremely rare ( 1/500) and most good coins or projects have high evaluations so terrible investors are not interested. They want the cheap hot alts, or the bitconnects.
(Posting good ICO's wont get much traffic because you wont be posting a review every week since only a few ICO's have really shown to be good investments long term )
2. If you post reviews on new and upcoming ICO's you are wasting your time. 99% of ICO's and coins are bad investments, even if they are profitable. ( look at bitconnect ) A good investor knows that a profitable coin doesnt mean it was a good investment. Which is why you shouldnt short a cryptocurrency ( different lesson ) So by posting reviews of shit projects you are wasting your time because there won't be much content in the review since it is a terrible coin.
Summary: ICO review sites suck with content because a good investor will do research on their own. Bad investors will go to the sites to look for investments, but if you are looking to make benificial work and profit for your efffort then it's not a good idea.
Topic: Idea for an ICO rating Site? - page 2. (Read 258 times)
I will be glad to speak to you about this project.
What do you think can be done to reduce the level of substandard and fake projects in Crypto World? Most ICO ratings sites aren't reliable.
Some have suggested allowing the substandard devs and scammers to roam freely in order to teach vulnerable investors some bitter lessons. It is a dangerous ideology/idea i don't subscribe to.
Do you have any suggestion that should be developed?
Here are some suggestions i think is worth considering:
Some have suggested allowing the substandard devs and scammers to roam freely in order to teach vulnerable investors some bitter lessons. It is a dangerous ideology/idea i don't subscribe to.
Do you have any suggestion that should be developed?
Here are some suggestions i think is worth considering:
Quote
None of the rating sites I know is up to standard as far as transparency is concerned. Most of the websites are controlled by a person or few individuals.
Crypto World is a bit disorganized at the moment. The current creators of Cryptocurrencies are not ready to let go of their hold on "Decentralized" projects. There are lot of businessmen in Crypto world these days but very few ideological developers.
I think having Decentralized rating sites with good reputation system could solve most of the problem especially the transparency issue. There should be set Standards which new Projects that want to be taken seriously must pass through.
The Standards should be created, debated on and set by the Community. [Community could be made up of Developers of top 100 Cryptocurrencies. The developers have to discuss things first within their various communities. For example: Bitcoin main devs agree within their community which standard should be agreed on.]
Some of my set Standards:
1. Project must be Original and Authentic .. . & possibly Unique .
2. How technically sound the project is % (in percentage)
3. Project viability %
4. Project must be well Decentralized % (how Decentralized?)
5. Whitepaper must be free from plagiarism.
6. Coin should not premined above x percentage.
7. There should be Proof of concept or something.
8. Developer/Developers should be X experienced.
9. How hack proof or secure is the project % (in percentage)
Etc...
* Rating Standards can be divided into different layers as numbered above. Project/ICO would pass through each layer and get rated by algorithm and human evaluators.
*The raters or evaluators should be good algorithms and people with well deserved reputation.
* Human evaluators could be paid in the system Coin.
* System should be designed in such a way that Human evaluators who are found ignoring, over-rating or under-rating are automatically kicked out or suspended.
* Rating from Algorithm should placed side by side of the rating of human. Example: final rating of a particular ICO/Project could be like this:
Algo Rating = 38%
Human Rating = 42%
* Project that wants to pass through rating should purchase reasonable amounts of the system Coin.
Crypto World is a bit disorganized at the moment. The current creators of Cryptocurrencies are not ready to let go of their hold on "Decentralized" projects. There are lot of businessmen in Crypto world these days but very few ideological developers.
I think having Decentralized rating sites with good reputation system could solve most of the problem especially the transparency issue. There should be set Standards which new Projects that want to be taken seriously must pass through.
The Standards should be created, debated on and set by the Community. [Community could be made up of Developers of top 100 Cryptocurrencies. The developers have to discuss things first within their various communities. For example: Bitcoin main devs agree within their community which standard should be agreed on.]
Some of my set Standards:
1. Project must be Original and Authentic .. . & possibly Unique .
2. How technically sound the project is % (in percentage)
3. Project viability %
4. Project must be well Decentralized % (how Decentralized?)
5. Whitepaper must be free from plagiarism.
6. Coin should not premined above x percentage.
7. There should be Proof of concept or something.
8. Developer/Developers should be X experienced.
9. How hack proof or secure is the project % (in percentage)
Etc...
* Rating Standards can be divided into different layers as numbered above. Project/ICO would pass through each layer and get rated by algorithm and human evaluators.
*The raters or evaluators should be good algorithms and people with well deserved reputation.
* Human evaluators could be paid in the system Coin.
* System should be designed in such a way that Human evaluators who are found ignoring, over-rating or under-rating are automatically kicked out or suspended.
* Rating from Algorithm should placed side by side of the rating of human. Example: final rating of a particular ICO/Project could be like this:
Algo Rating = 38%
Human Rating = 42%
* Project that wants to pass through rating should purchase reasonable amounts of the system Coin.
Jump to: