Topic: Is ICOBench reliable source with ligit ICOs? - page 3. (Read 380 times)
Agreed with all people above - all ICO alerts are a secondary source of information. But you can never be sure that the information posted is up to date or even relevant - always double check with the website of the project or Telegram / other channels.
Yes, I trust ICO Bench, there are many professional reviews from this field, so why not trust them. It is their job to do the research. But also many times happend to me that ICO had good rating but low hype and they didnt raise so much money to reach soft cap and the ICO was unsuccessful. So even if the ICO looks good and also has good product, it doesnt mean that has good potential to each soft cap.
I usually join the telegram channels. But use icoalerts for the rough sorting.
Bit of a jungle out there.
Bit of a jungle out there.
I think ICO bench is one good source if I were to find a good ICO bounty to join. Because most of the persons who are behind ICO bench is expert in the field of blockchain technology. And since I dont want to waste my time doing on scam bounty so I check first ICO bench.
I basically do the same way. Use it as a benchmark to select the bounty to participate in
NOPE!
Any site that mass lists ICOs with "ratings" are not a good source at all.
However, they are quite useful.
See these sites like wikipedia, a great place to get general information but you would never use it as a source to back up legitimate decisions.
So in that sense, I actually use places like ICO bench or ICO drops quite frequently.
I use it to quickly look up dates and different type of ICOs.
My core research is never based off of what they say but it does lead me to ICO's websites where I start the real work of looking at their team and whitepaper and what not.
The main reason why you should not trust those ratings, is because they are almost always paid to do them.
That makes it incredibly biased and unreliable.
Also, nothing beats old fashioned research.
Yes, it takes more time, but for me, I have yet to fail on picking a good ICO simply because the process I go through guarantees that I weed out the bad ones.
Any site that mass lists ICOs with "ratings" are not a good source at all.
However, they are quite useful.
See these sites like wikipedia, a great place to get general information but you would never use it as a source to back up legitimate decisions.
So in that sense, I actually use places like ICO bench or ICO drops quite frequently.
I use it to quickly look up dates and different type of ICOs.
My core research is never based off of what they say but it does lead me to ICO's websites where I start the real work of looking at their team and whitepaper and what not.
The main reason why you should not trust those ratings, is because they are almost always paid to do them.
That makes it incredibly biased and unreliable.
Also, nothing beats old fashioned research.
Yes, it takes more time, but for me, I have yet to fail on picking a good ICO simply because the process I go through guarantees that I weed out the bad ones.
Although there are many other ICO rating sites like http://icorating.com/ which are equally good, I personally prefer using ICO bench because of how their platform is. Everything is well organized and makes almost all the info you need on an ICO available. But there are times when I do comparisons with other sites.
There is a huge number of ICOs coming this year and we need some sort of filter to chose most reliable and ligit ones. I personally use ICOBench.com to filter good ones based on overal ICO rating and segregated ratings per Team, ICO profile, etc. I wonder if it is a good one, or there are more reliable ones out there?
There is filter in the market that can be used for the screening of ICO's and thats "Your personal experience." Nothing or no one is more reliable than yourself because ICObench and sites similar to that one are getting paid for the ICO listing. It means any project that goes their is not the perfectly reviewed one. Some of them could be bribed one and it might just look like a joke but I think things like that do happen in this world. With decentralised nature of ICO's we cant say anything about them from the idea that they are having. Its better to study them in deepest way possible by keeping track of them each day or week and see how they are developing the whole thing.
Now ICObench cant do that for you so better choose it on your own.
you should not only trust to 1 ico review site.
Maybe the ICO pays them for review them as a good review.
You should look at many references of ico review site before you chosing icos
Maybe the ICO pays them for review them as a good review.
You should look at many references of ico review site before you chosing icos
I think ICO bench is one good source if I were to find a good ICO bounty to join. Because most of the persons who are behind ICO bench is expert in the field of blockchain technology. And since I dont want to waste my time doing on scam bounty so I check first ICO bench.
Dont rely only on ICO LISTING sites, ussually they cover only ICO with good fundings and market campaigns (which made only to complete successful ICO and run away with money), due to huge amount of new ICOs.
I personally spend lot of time searching around Announcments here on Bitcointalk, read one by one to find really interesting projects.
I personally spend lot of time searching around Announcments here on Bitcointalk, read one by one to find really interesting projects.
There is a huge number of ICOs coming this year and we need some sort of filter to chose most reliable and ligit ones. I personally use ICOBench.com to filter good ones based on overal ICO rating and segregated ratings per Team, ICO profile, etc. I wonder if it is a good one, or there are more reliable ones out there?
Jump to: