Topic: [Trusted ICO Reviews&Ratings] Which sources of ICO ratings do you trust and why? - page 3. (Read 1661 times)

Some people here touched upon the issue of paid ICO listing websites. As I see it, basically, there are two sides of the same 'coin'.

On the one hand, people might think paid listings and reviews are biased and therefore lack reliability.

However, on the other hand, if a project pays (big) money for such a promo, the team behind it believes in its success and that this activity will pay off, which might mean the project is worth it.

Of course, it is hard to say in advance what 'hand' should be actually true in each case, but obviously, the world is not simply black and white, you know.

I don't use any sources personally. All sources are somekinda biased. I look bitcointalk ann page, official website and whitepaper. These 3 are enough to realize what is good or bad about that one ico.

Look and MVP and use cases for the ICO.

This ^^^^^.  Is right on the money.

Just to add a few more to jlp's excellent advice.
1: Does it solve a "current" real world problem?
2: Are the founders greedy?  EG keeping a large percentage of the tokens for themselves. Releasing a huge amount of tokens in total. Is the token sale uncapped (big red flag right there)?
3: Does the token have an intrinsic function of the platform etc?  Many ICO's are just tech startup's who cannot get funding via the usual channels (perhaps because it fails the basic test) but then think, hey why don't we add a token to it, and launch an ICO".  Once you cut through all the fancy marketing BS you find the real world value of the token is worth the same amount as a recipe for ice cubes.  And once you've paid for said cubes, the project evaporates just as quick.    
 
Someone suggested https://icobench.com/ico/selfpay
Interestingly, out of their top 10 projects only two have a working product.
I checked out 5 of my current investments who all have a working product and most scored terribly (under 2.5/5)

Not to overemphasis the point but in real world terms, if someone came to you and said "We have this idea for a new smart phone.  It's going to solve this xxxx problem. It's built on a telecommunications network that is 5 years off being useful and by the way, we've never built a phone before and we don't even have a working prototype to show you because as I said, we've never built one before".
This is what most ICO's are asking of investor's which is why most will fail.  Heck, I'll be happy if just one of mine pays off but you just never know so never gamble more than you can afford to lose.

One final note. These ICO evaluation sites are all good for one thing.  A "quick initial" assessment of an ICO that you may be interested in. Like panning for precious metal, there are so many ICO's being released that it's hard to filter out out the silt and crap and uncover the real gold.   Don't rely on just the one resource and as always DYOR to see if it satisfies the above criteria.

cheers
NFI.  

It's an interesting question, like some have said, most if not all of those ico listing websites are asking for money to list ICO projects.

So let's think about it, Project team are doing an ICO to get funds and develops their idea or in our case (see my signature) get money to spread the solution.

My point, is that if ICO projects owner are looking for money, they probably do not have money enough to get listed in those expensive listing.

You will say, most of them propose free listing, ok, been there ... more than 2 weeks ago and still 80% of the ico listing websites still did not list our project which is mature, with existing team, giving good rewards and bonus...

To summarize, I believe the best opportunities are probably hidden gems that are still in process inside those ico listing websites. And when they get published, it's probably already too late, as the most profitable bonus are off the table already ...

One exception is https://icobench.com/ico/selfpay we have been listing very quickly with them.

I often read the reviews at crush crypto because it is a good summary of an ico and the guy who writes it lays out the weak points of each ico. I use it as a sort of filter to see which icos i could look at more in depth. What I don't like is that he never gives a negative recommendation. He'll be really critical in his write up of an ico and the verdict will be "neutral". It's like he's afraid of sticking by his criticisms.

In this case, you need to trust only themselves.

Be careful with some of these.

Several of them charge to be listed.  Some give higher standings or visibility to those ICOs that pay more.

Before the housing bubble burst (financial crisis of 2008), Moody's and S&P gave high ratings on mortgage backed securities because the banks paid these agencies for the ratings.

I also browse such sites with ICO, namely - Icorating and Icobench

There's no need to do all of that with every ICO.

You can make your search far easier if you filter out the majority of coins.  It's easy to do this with 2 simple filters:

1)  Does the project have anything built? No? Move on. Forget about their big teams and fancy titles. Most projects have these and they cannot prove that they can build anything. Writing software is much more difficult than creating a one-page website or video. Several projects raised multiple millions and still haven't delivered any software. Let me know if you want examples.

2)  Is the team from a corrupt country? Yes? Move on. In corrupt countries, ethics and honesty are more lax, which means that they will have a higher propensity to exaggerate or lie.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

The third filter is harder to implement. You need to be able to do critical thinking. Does the application make sense? Jesus coin is an extreme example of something that doesn't make sense, but most are leaning towards this. Crypto currency is good for some applications (transfer or store of value, save fees, save time, gambling) but not all applications.

Most projects are trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes. There's a project that wants to connect locals with travelers to enhance the travel experience. You have to do mental gymnastics to figure out why an altcoin is needed here.

You have "Tokenizing Rising Tennis Stars: tokenstars.com/ace" in your signature.  That sounds like somebody is trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.  Why the hell would you have that in your signature?  It's getting close to the Jesus coin.

Resources like icorating.com, smithandcrown.com, and icobench.com seem to be a good starting point to get an idea of what ICOs might be worth checking out and digging into, what strong and weak points they have, etc. To a first approximation.

After that, of course, only your own analysis based on your own criteria will work best, those that are meaningful to you within the framework of your understanding of what exactly you want to get in the end, how soon, whether you know much about the target market of a project or not, and so on.

How do you choose which tokens to buy from the market? Do you buy them instantly after tokens are listed on the exchange or you wait for some time?

I agree. "Trust no one" like in X-Files )

Have you noticed that your own opinion about several ICOs coincided with someone`s rating or review?

frankly, never trust such website to put my investment into an ICO, most of them are giving their good rate only to ICOS that are paying them bitcoin. basically, not worth to put my trust on.
i'll better join some slack or telegram group and gather people's opinion about the best ICO at the moment rather than trusting these website.

This is a very useful conversation, how to see successful icos is quite difficult and requires more attention from knowledge and self-study.
Because after all we can not trust anyone at all without learning and jumping into it.

Unfortunately, I believe that trusted members of the forum rather review altcoins (the most famous of them) and don't look at icos. I am saying that because I've seen a list of worthy coins by Theymos, some reviews written by iamnotback. Any solid reviews of icos? Not really. They still have a bad reputation of being total scams, so some time has to pass before there'll be a good source on icos. For now I try not to invest in them and just look at what they offer from time to time to be up to speed.

Yes research should be done to get a good project. so it would not hurt us to waste time to research or analyze a project before we join in its ico.

How about shit token Exchange Union (XUC) by Tokenmarket management ?

I alwais visit tokenmarket.net I think ICo review in tokenmarket.net is the best. Many ICos make succesful crowdsale when the review is listed in tokenmarket. I can invest in the ICOs after reading the review in tokenmarket.net

Usually I read this site:
https://crushcrypto.com/

But they rarely update upcoming or ongoing ICO. CrushCrypto site just review their personal opinion about ICO, and I like how they are delivering ICO with different point of view. Maybe this is just for comparing for another ICO rating site like icorating.com

And the last, this forum on ANN thread have huge information and more objective than the other ICO rating site.