Bitcoin Forum

There are many websites like ICObench, ICOratings that make a list of new coming cryptocurrency and ICO and sorted them out by ratings which they gave to the ICOs. My question is what are the factors that they examine to rate those ICOs. Anyone can help me.
Thank you all. 

I do not believe in those ratings, most of them are bought. ICObench is not good at all, for me the best option  is icodrops to check projects

They usually judge an ICO from many things like: team, goal, development, roadmap planning and so on. But today many ICO websites are wrong in judging a project, sometimes they give a high score for an ICO scam

You can watch the list that they offer to examine. They are often: Team, Website, Whitepaper, MVP, etc. Then their "experts" will based on that factors to give scores for a project.

The basis they use to rate those ico includes the product, they will check the product the team is trying to build, then they will check their team to know if they have the experience to build the project, they will check their token allocation and lot of other things,

I don't believe these sites because currently many sites are working on Money basis so they don't judge properly in ICOs. But we should analyse the white paper, Road map and developing team that is the factor to predict the good project or scam one. So don't trust the Ratings of project because not all are properly given to them.

Those sites used several factors which would include but not limited to the composition of the team, how workable is the project, the duration, the ROI, road map etc but above all, is the interest of the person doing the review and his involvement in the project which nullities all of the objective argument that might have been put forward and the disclaimer they always put in their review is what makes me to be skeptical because they cannot be held responsible for any loss that arises for relying on their reviews and making a decision.

I think its just a waste of time, all ico reviews that lists upcoming cryptocurrency and ICO and sorted them out by ratings  are all paid.
and according to business words, you cannot be paid and give a bad review

So do your own research, find out about the project, look into their team and finally decide after alot of done job what to do about the project.
In crypto currency 2018, you can only help yourself.

They list different factors, but that doesn't really matter. Ratings from those sites are bought. The higher a company pays the better the ratings and reviews. ICOs can even make them publish exact words comming from the company itself. This has been proven multiple times, so don't even bother with their reviews and ratings.

The more I look at these countless ICOs, the more they all appear the same.

I mean, there's not much to examine. The same old lingo, the same old ideas recycled.

If I were to judge them I would put the greatest emphasis on the quality of the whitepaper.

But the ranking sites mostly concentrate on the amount of money the ICO managers are willing to give them.

Check out this medium article (https://medium.com/alethena/this-is-how-easy-it-is-to-buy-ico-ratings-an-investigation-13d07e987394) to see how easy it is to manipulate ICO ratings.

Not that I blame them or something. Just saying.

I think they are looking at their team members and based on that they are giving ratings.
I don't see any other way, every idea is good idea if it can be performed well.

I think they rate this by examining team members of the ICO. May be the sites also get paid to rate certain ICO.

The ratings are not always true. These days some scams are getting high ratings. Some sites are taking money for these illegal ratings.

Personally I don't reckon with those ICOs raters I researched on Google and read whitepapers, members of the team, the project as a solution to the society and it was recently established that some of these ICOs raters do collect bribe to rate and give good reviews to some undeserving ICOs.

in the form of project objective factors about the information and the people around who are responsible for the project as well as the allocation of tokens that will be offered in Ico later and determine the time when the implementation of Ico will be in the start ..

Me personally actually do not believe on those ratings also. As this are websites and they need to earn somehow they will not hesitate to sell ratings. The best is to investigate the project personally.  

Actually there are many things to consider. The premise they use to rate those ico incorporates the item, they will check the item the group is attempting to manufacture, at that point they will check their group to know whether they have the experience to fabricate the venture, they will check their token portion and parcel of different things.

If you want to judge any particular ICO you need to check out their performance, customer feedback, website etc. But your rating is not always true.

Well, there are many points that work behind the rating of ICO. the most important point is the demand and the supply of tokens. Among others, scalability and liquidity also play major role.

Wow, I advise you not to use icobench.
Most of the time the site's ratings are not objective enough, and many are paid for.

I stopped trusting these evaluation sites because many projects that were well appreciated, did not give a good result! I think companies pay for ratings.

I think the best answer in this question that which basis ICO or tokens get ratings, in the way that if they are useful and helpful to the user or investors in this business they give good ratings.

These ratings are bought, I don't believe them. It's like an advertisement but for potential investors and no more, beautiful numerals

That's right, and that's the main reason why I really don't rely on any of the ratings. Most probably those who rate ICOs were just paid to give high ratings, though I don't want to generalize. I don't know how they decided to give ratings based on the said factors especially when people can put very promising things in their whitepapers and roadmaps even if they don't mean it and just for the sake of getting people to invest on their project. Maybe there are still some truth in one of them ratings but we can't be so sure. I just feel bad for them legit ones being dragged by scammers.

actually I do not know how the website rating system is like that, and whether the ICO has potential. It's better not to look over the rating, but also visit their website or discussion group, there you can understand more and the ins and outs of the ICO's interest.
I usually do more research on ICO website, team, advisor, whitepaper, and roadmap before actually deciding whether ICO is good or not.

I do not believe in these ratings in general. I think many projects there buy themselves an estimate, ratings do not help from SCAM! I do not understand at all for what they are needed, projects with the best raiting I have failed, and with bad assessments on the contrary brought profit!

Most of such ratings are fake and the ICOs cannot be judged by those ratings. So I always avoid such ratings. Still as much as I know these rating are given based on their projects, team working behind, security issues etc.

I never really believed in every ratings. What I looked for before I invested in chozun 途赞 was the team, the roadmap, I read carefully through their whitepaper. It appears to me that it's unique and innovative. Some ratings are actually paid.

Well said, we cannot rule out the chances that some of those ratings are bought, they are part of the fraud in the ecosystem. We are projects with good ratings failing while those with poor ratings eventually doing better. One is not to make investment decisions based purely on those ratings

I think the criteria of assessment of concept, whitepapper, as well as from teams that run it. Perhaps there is also assessment of movement of his token sales. and also judged from how many people's interest in ICO.

Don't take for granted those rating, at least read more then one and make average, it's a good way to exlude outliers

Very true. On that note, I would suggest not trusting any ICO rating site blindly, but these review sites are good for reference purposes though. Among these websites, Icobench seems to be the best. It is better to research the campaign that you wish to participate in through this forum itself(Campaign manager, development team, whitepaper, number of participants etc) and then decide whether to join or not.

While I do not totally trust the a lot of these rating sites, here are some factors they use to rate projects, they include the team(their expertise, presence or absence of KYC documents) , Vision (accesssed from the white paper), product, Social media presence and size of community, website etc

Ratings are sometimes really virtual. Dont look tokens ratings always. The most important thing is the crew and idea.

As most people seem to be saying, ICO rating sites are very subjective, and I would personally never invest solely on the basis of a rating. Saying that, they can be good to pick up new ICOs and then do the research yourself, using the criteria that you specifically consider important. I like to see a working product, or at least MVP, but most new projects now seem to be selling bottled air. Last ICO I invested in was back in January (currently on the exchanges at about an 80% loss), so I tend to wait until they hit the markets now. It's rare that any are reaching the exchanges at above the ICO price, especially with the current market conditions. Tread with care.