Bitcoin Forum

What do you guys think of the current ICO's rating system? Are you satisfied/happy? Do you think it reflects the real projects value? Does it help you to find right ICO's to invest to? What do you think about experts (even very well known ones) who provide corrupted ratings?
There are way too many questions. Let's discuss)

It is also a way to help you evaluate it, but it is not comprehensive. To evaluate a project you must evaluate both the operator, the technology, and the idea of the project. The key is whether it will increase in the near future to take profit

Most of the sites that depend on reviews, I wouldn't trust icobench because their ratings are pretty bad.
ICODROPS has an excellent rating, which is worth believing.

have you faced with corrupted experts ratings problem?

Do you think there are resources where you can find the information that you can rely on?

Well In my mind you should have atleast make a point out of what? Is it an about ICO? an reaction and ratings where? The website the positive reviews of the token or the platform or an outcome of one results?

Clearly sometimes it depends all have positive results by giving good endorsement giving out the positive maybe they got paid for that ratings or comments. Still if you think its fake just report it but make research because truly your making that topic, I agreed with with the people who wants to know were did you get that idea? Or is ot just out of the bloom

 I corrected the topic subject thank you. The question is definitely about current ICO's rating system.

They all seem absolutely terrible or atleast all the popular ones. They're all just in it for the money. But then most of us are doing bounties for the money too lol.

Majority of them are paid so expect that each ICOs they are rating will receive a very good review.

The rating is fine if the price is right.

So those ICO investors, make sure that you don't depend on these rating sites.

Some of this ratings are based on objective things such of number of followers and so on. But also the rating is included of biased components, like reviews, advisers. So there is too much room for fraud.

Do you think the community needs a trustful tool to define the real value of a project?

Do you think it is possible to make this market transparent and opened for a single standing investor?

I believe that these people can definitely work with people, especially those who believe in these sites, if you believe rumors, many sites are bought or bought advisors that advertise and vouch for projects.

are there any ways to overcome these problems?

I think that at the moment there is no independent evaluation system. ICO projects pay so that their rating is as high as possible. About experts, too. Most of them do not deny that they take money for advertising, how can you believe their words? :(

The ICO ratings will only help you evaluate these projects, but it is not a measurement of the success of the ICO as there are many factors that will contribute to its success. That is why self evaluation of the ICO project is still essential even if the ICO as a good rating from reputable websites such as ICObench, ICOmarks, trackICO and ICOholder.

Rating are only a tip of the icebergs,and in my opinion most times are not a true reflection on the quality or integrity of the project.One still has to dig deeper to find good projects. ICOmarks is a good rating site in my opinion,they do their bit

I believe that the evaluation of projects today is very expensive, because in most cases I believe that many projects are scam. This is a statistic that is working very seriously today and now very many people will have to say that I'm wrong, but many will support it.

It does help of course. Those who are not capable of reading what was being stated on the whitepaper and only relying to the replies in the blog post regarding the ICO. Some users in the forum aren't getting out of bitcointalk, they stay here and will only read the website of the project and if they find it not interesting, the project will be scratched out. No ratings for it at all.  I don't see a website that lists highly rated ICO projects that turned scam yet maybe one of these days a fed up user will create one.

The only thing I can say with rating system is that those ratings can guide you into picking a project you would likely want to do a research on. You will understand my point of view if you have to look at the number of ICOs popping up everyday and you may not have the time to start scrutinizing each one after the other.

However and just like you said, ratings are corrupt since these days, so called experts get paid for rating an ICO and it would be high level of carelessness for any investor to invest based on expert rating alone without doing further research. Nevertheless, it is good to have the rating system there than not having them at all.

I have given up listening to such a rating. Since I know that you can also buy these ratings as an ICO operator, I no longer regard these ratings as serious. Such a rating does not seem to reflect the reality and is therefore not reliable in my opinion. Therefore, you should not rely on just such a rating and rather do your own research on the ICO.  ;)

None of the ICO rating projects are not able to show us an indicator of greed or stupidity of the project developers. They can confirm the veracity of the presence of people in the team, to evaluate the idea of the project. But the most important elements for the success of ICO we do not see. Maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe not. It is still important.

There are so many ICO rating systems but not all of them are good. I only believe in ICObench cause IMO, I think it's the most truthworthy system although I know that ICObench also received money to promote for ICO project :). Of course ICO rating systems affect a lot to ICO project cause investors always focus on ICO projects which have highest rate only :).

Do not base your decision in any rating site, it just simole rate and not mean the higher the rate the top ICO will success its token sales. There are allmost perfect rate buy  scam or  unsuccesdfull and there are below ratings hut gain much sales. Meaning good ICO is only can find through research by us. No website can tell it perfectly

Although there are now many ICOS rating systems, you need to find reputable organizations that have been successful in this area. Lucky !!!

Do you guys think that we are at the point where market needs completely different rating system which can filter tons of scams finds gems and creates a real time interactive feedback between projects and community? The availability of such a dialog within community helps projects to get a feedback and improve their weaknesses. And from other hand it helps an individuals to find interesting projects and rate those ones with a score deserved. Any thoughts?

There are some few people in the industry i can trust a bit and there are some site i can trust their ratings a little bit but there are some people and site i cannot trust, they are financial induced to give those ratings.

As for investor, it is important for me to see what the project really is not relying on "experts" who sell their ratings (as it is on ICObench) or others "advisors" who promote projects for a share of revenue. We definitely need a system that can bring the real ratings.

Do you think there is a way to avoid corrupted ratings? To make ICO's ecosystem prosper the trust should be created. There is no trust now that reflects in global downtrend. People are tired from scams/cheating/fraud etc. How can be trust created? - people should understand that information they receive is reliable. So the market needs a source of reliable info and on other hand the market should be cleaned from scams and combination of both will lead ICO's ecosystem to prosper and crypto market to growth.

I don't use these kind this ICO rating systems as some of them are payed by the project itself to deceive investors. I do my own research like scrutinizing the identity of the CEO and all other team member in the telegram.

According to you ?
I guess it depends on the concept and white paper on the ico. of course there is a difference in every judgment and in fact that is important even though there is always manupulation for it.

First of all im well aware on those ico rating sites its good to check out some current ico's in the market but not totally using up to including them into my analysis or basing them out on how i gonna choose up the ico i would invest. Not totally entrusting them because some of them are being paid up and top rating ico wont really give you an assurance to be successful as an investor.
This is why it would still depend on your decision and your own analysis and research this is just good for add up preference.

I think it's good to add references to investors not to participate in scam projects, I appreciate what experts do in rating ico projects, they have tried to make the world cryptocurrency better.

Imho we need some kind of service with KYC for ICO devs. You want my money pls show your faces and real lifes. Don't want - ok - next one. ICO's even with good ratings just disappears sometimes and this is bad.

I would suggest not to go for rating sites, quick and easy money is not easy! You need to work hard on this in the beginning and develop a good understanding of crypto and blockchain first. Instead of investing Alts directly they should start with good ICOs and to find them they need to research and study, ICOs come up with a good amount of information on their product which can help them a lot. Go for Liven and Redcab, targeting real markets like food and travel, they are legit and reliable.

As we all know experts are corrupted. How can you trust their opinion?

I think that all ratings are false, you do not need to rely on these ratings . you have to make decisions based on your own conclusions

In my opinion, most of them are not objective nowadays. Project can buy a promotion in this rating and investors buy their token and lose its money.

of course not, I'm not satisfied or not happy ... almost all ratings do not justify themselves

So may be it s time to change it? What if a project will be rated by community members?

I never cared about the website rating and ICO rating. Most analysts and evaluators of these websites are often unprofessional and do not analyse ICO projects well. they are a just fundamental analysis

Most ICO ratings are just money making ventures. The rate based on the amount paid to them, because most if their ratings do not reflect the true value of those projects. Imagine projects rated high, yet they fail or end up being scam.

What rating system are you talking about? You will see tons of articles online which promoted scam ICOs. One thing you will notice that, most of the ICOs have almost the same "positive" review. This is because the ratings and reviews you find are actually for the paid for. They ICO developers pay them to write a review about their project and naturally the bloggers write positive review with a hope of getting paid extra. So i would say the ICO ratings are actually very unreliable.

With all the allegations against some of these ICO-rating site, I would advise you to do your own research and take their rating as light weight. Most of these rating website and giving their ratings to the highest bidder, even some of these do rate scam projects very high. I don't want to be naming names

If you do understand what crypto's are, for being anonymous and decentralized don't expect for transparency.

Although this is open for every single investor that wants to start investing and make his way to stock more crypto's on his portfolio's.

Can't disagree on you, they are one of the most hype way of making money nowadays if you own a rating site and list ICOs for free and offer them for a nice review to get paid.

If you are talking about the rating websites which we see like everyone getting a 4+ rating these days, I find them utter useless.
Being in bitcointalk, we all know about bounties and content creation, over the time, we have seen special bounties, which includes such rating website to review there ICO with high stars.

These rating websites just get good bounty payouts for rating the ICOs high on there platform, and hence there is no possible way to trust there scores anymore.

Talking about experts like Ian shillina and others, they just use there influencing power in the projects to which they are linked to. I personally dont target any of them, but a lot of shill just make a shitty ICO well funded.

Doing research on ICO is an individual task before investing it IN. Look out for the partners, read out whitepaper, check the genuineness of partners and advisors if they are really linked to the project.

Its not really a wise decision to invest somewhere looking by just the rating systems.

What if there will appear a platform where anyone from the community can rate? And in the same time when rating this person will be rated as well to avoid corrupted ratings..?

We all very well know all these names)

now a lot of sites that discuss and give rating to ICO but many of them give less accurate rating in my opinion because I compare ico which have high rating lost success with ico which have medium or low rating, all can happen but better ico rating only for evaluation and reference only and the final choice to yourself

They are a complete waste of time and should not be relied upon. They do not do proper due diligence and often only repeat the information the company has released without confirming its authenticity. Some have been caught asking for money in return for positive reviews. You should not rely on them instead of doing your own due diligence before investing.

Ratings as we have learnt are now influenced. These project owners pay the rating sites to put out a favorable review out the space. This informs why a lot of these projects don't stand the test of time when they hit the exchange because their use cases are so vague. That being said, there are some ratings that are honest and unbiased.

I use them as guides to see the details of the ICO and team members at a glance. I don't trust their scores though. For some very good sites, I can also check the categories of ICOs.

I don't really pay attention to it. Sometimes that kind of rating ICO just gives the trick away. better analyze himself with certainty and accordingly what is. It would be much more promising than relying on an assessment rating of ICO. many have bad ICO rating and it's not a guarantee of the ICO will not be able to be a great success and could even reach hard cap.

Don't you think besides all hype projects there are some that could be interesting but due to the lack of feedback from community they do not improve their leaks and do not succeed?

The metrics for rating projects is bad. very bad in fact. Gone are the days when the so called experts rate project based on the project's proposition. These days, It's all about "Hey, There's hype, I would invest". That's how crappy and low quality projects gets hyped and shilled while the good ones are poorly funded.. It's all about the hype now. Experts has turned paid shillers and ICO rating sites takes cash (or should I say bribe?) to keep low quality ICOs on their first pages. It's gets worse everyday.

I really do not follow their ratings because I feel they can be biased some times. I usually make use of icodrops and some youtubers rating.

What will you do to change it if you can? (just ideas)

ICOBench experts want money to give a high rating for projects, it's scam.

I would not say that ico itself experiences bad times. There are many projects, and they collect enough, much more than they need to implement these projects in fact. And the fact that tokens fall into the abyss immediately, this is another matter. In the mid-term, they will strongly affect ico, but now things are going pretty well for ico.

The topic is not about "how ICO's are doing". Please read first before writing.

I think the rating is still fair. Although it does not really depict what becomes of a project nowadays as a result of too much projects that makes it impossible for them to scrutinize the projects so well to get to know if they can actually achieved what they plan in their whutepapers

the degree of trust in rating agencies is not high among the audience: the last financial crisis was largely provoked with the assistance of well-known international rating agencies.  The second possible logically justified factor of distrust is suspicion of monetization on the wave of "HYIP": to attract investments startups need to make themselves known, and one of the best ways to do this is to get into an independent rating.  Whether the wishes of the organizers of the ICO are monetizing whether the owners of independent ratings are or not is unknown, and there are no reliable facts confirming this.
Now all rating teams have about the same difficulties: the lack of qualified personnel and the youth of the industry. Whichever figures the crypto-currency market operates with, we can see high-level analytics only when international rating brands enter this market.

I do read the ICO rating reviews as a reference and analyse the project by myself. I think a proper research should still be done since we are investing money in the project.

You also need to know the ICO's potential and its current competitors. Don't rely on rating. Some have low rating but successful ICO and some have high rating but rubbish ICO. The ICO's team who is hardworking has a great chance carry the ICO to a success making it a good investment for people who believe on it.

The rating on some review sites depends on the legitimacy of its team like doing a KYC for the team members. It also include the vision and product. The vision is how much it is relevant to the consumers. The product is how it could make a certain thing to be convenient. There are many criteria to rate an ICO but those I've mentioned are the ones getting prioritized.

The current ICO rating systems cannot be trusted, some of them are close to accurate, some of them might be right but most of them aren't as good as they seem to be, most are just but predictions based on assumptions but not as accurate, we cannot be trusting them fully, or using them to make investment decisions, rather, its better to carry out your own research about these ICOs,

i would not trust these pages properly either. on some rating sites it is possible to buy the rating. since i know that, i do not trust such ratings sites anymore and i advise everyone not just to rely on it.

www.icoguide.com is my favorite, I do not believe in all rating sites, but this one is trustworthy for me, rates are realistic and not paid. And when I am making my own research I always agree with their scores.

agree this page is really good, I am also looking at their rates.

lol nice try guys) looks like you are the only listing without problems mentioned above.

I don't trust any of the more popular rating websites, it's been shown time and time again that you can basically just buy a high rating.

I dont believe ICO rating systems, literally. They promote ICO products for money, oftenly. I am more confident with the projects developed by corporate companies. I care about merit.

ICO rating websites are different. Some of them are possibly selling the rating stats, others might be independent, but still no guarantees about it. Personally, I use these sites for getting all the info about the project as fast as it possible. Platforms have a very user-friendly design.

I don't trust the ratings of ICO. if I were a scammer I would be the first thing paid to my project was the leader in the ranking of the ICO.

For me, this is a useful thing. Of course, you always need to conduct an independent analysis, but this allows you to select and filter the results and choose what you like. For me, it's more like a search assistant than something that will influence my decision.

In some point yes,as i have watch the success of trade io project and until now the token is still in good position,maybe now all of the mentioned projects make to success but whats important is theres a future about all the project who gests on TOP positioning

But lets be observant because this like this needs a own research and dont just rely on somebody telling you wjats good or not

I do not think that today we have a system that fully corresponds to what we expect of it. All the same today, people expect a slump in the market, but it does not decrease, the market is really full of scam projects and some projects are underestimated on the contrary.

what helps you to do you own research?

I don't trust them but there's so many ICOs now that it can be good to use those sites to atleast provide a shortlist to research further.

I do not believe in ICO Ratings because these past months I have joined a campaign and their many ads on their website where they show that their ratings are high. But when the campaign was over and they were successful in their campaign did not pay and it became a scam.

can you name the project?

I think they are quite helpful, especially for lazy bounty participants to do thorough project research but try to compare ICO instead of just one web rating, try to compare it with other web ratings. such as Icodrop, icobench, icorating, icoreview, coinschendule.

I always look at the information that is displayed about the ICOs on these sites, but I do not always trust this information. I often heard that on these sites you can buy good feedback about the project and therefore it frustrates me.

 I am looking at www.icoguide.com rates, they look realistic, so I think are not paid. So it is good way to select some good projects among numerous on the market.

i do not think the current system is good. on some sites it is possible to buy the rating of a ico without being pointed out that the rating is just a buying result. that is very misleading. maybe thats not the case on all sides, but since then i do not trust any rating anymore.

Sites where you can see ICO ratings help me a lot when investing. Because there I can see what is worth the rating, learn the opinion of experts and understand whether it is worth investing in the project or not.

I'm not sure they are an independent party in giving reviews or ratings, or it could be that everyone can argue about the rating system, I do not really care about it

I do not trust the current ico rating systems.
You can never be sure if the rating has been reached normally or if it has been bought.
Thats why i never rely solely on the rating.

how do you make a research?

I think the entire ICO system is corrupt, and therefore the ratings in most cases are simply drawn!

Difficult to say, but if we think about it, everyone has to get by somehow. Therefore it would be logical for this kind of sites to give some kind of bonus to companies that are willing to compensate them for doing so. Well, I do not think it is somehow useful for companies to do so as less and less investors are taking the risk of investing in ICOs. But I would say they are doing it anyway to make an impression and obtain the soft cap at least (it is quite a success atm). But if I know if there are sites like that? Even if I try to deny it, most of them are probably doing so occasionally. The only good method is own research and a bit of luck  ;).

Do you think it is possible to do research when there are 300+ ICO's per month appearing?

They serve as a starting place for any investor, the problem is that people easily believe on things they see and didn't bother to do an extensive research and that's why they fail. All I know, rating sites are flawed, corrupted and should not be trusted. Anyway, have any of you came across with menlo.one? They plan to be a review platform with a guild community system.

Such search engines are very helpful. Thanks to them, you can quickly find the information you need on the project of interest. I do not make decisions based only on the rating, but if the project has a negative rating, then I will think twice before investing in it.

I used to believe ratings and lose money. I'm doing my analysis now. Sometimes I'm wrong, but these are my mistakes.

The ratings of ICO , very often doing advertising for money . I don't .

For me the rating in the ICO line is not a project that guarantees a good one, some experts say if this ICO feels very good, actually ICO is very bad, sometimes experts, lie about the quality of ICOS, I still use ICO ranking site to observe and look for good ICOS,I do that just for reference and reinforce my decision to choose an ICO.

I think Menlo One is one of the best ICOs this year. What I like about this project are their clean UI, decentralized system which stops corruption, and it also focuses on helping other legit projects that need funding. Future ICOs are very lucky that a project like Menlo has finally launched. Their whitepaper: https://www.menlo.one

UAHPAY, IMPRESSIO and many more. I could not write all of them on this thread but there was a bunch of scam projects that has paid the ico rating site to create a fake review to attract those new comers to invest in the project itself. The majority of ico rating sites can't be trusted and that's why a lot of them have lost their credibility for a few bucks of money.

Can you name rating sites that were payed and promoted these projects? Live cases are always interesting to all of us

   For me, ICO analysis is a priority. Which requires a lot of effort. Of course, the rating is not the best for the market as a whole, but it is not critical either. For myself, I have mastered several criteria for a successful ICO. Namely: a plan for the future, expansion, partners, team, marketing, documentation, and customer base. It is precisely through this view of ICO that projects like Kelvin Blockchain (https://medium.com/@kelvinchain/the-post-quantum-era-of-blockchain-todays-solutions-for-the-world-of-tomorrow-16bdd970f49a) will certainly become successful. And it's about quantum technology =)

rating is generally a good indicator, but it can play a cruel joke in terms of choosing a bounty campaign - there can be a lot of participants already

the question is not about bounty at all. Please do not comment if you have not read the subject

Add exact information for us to discuss this. Tell us which ratings and experts you mean. It's not easy to talk about the market and experts cause a lot of things happen each day.

if you mean the rating of websites like icobench, i can only say that i do not really trust them. on the internet you can write a lot when the day is long. thats why i never rely on a rating alone.

Don't trust ratings. Most are paid service where you get high  ratings for paying bit low ratings if you don't pay them. Best ICO with potential for huge returns on investment is the Trufield project ICO. This exciting project will revolutionize healthcare for millions of people. Trufield will provide free health data management systems in developing countries. The Pre-ICO is live and open to all investors, so buy your tokens at 25% discount. Buy Trufield token and learn more about the project here at http://Trufield.com or http://Trufield.io.

I don't confide in any of the more famous rating sites, it's been indicated over and over that you can fundamentally simply purchase a high appraising.

I don't believe much in ICO ratings. I still do my own research, ask a lot in the community telegram as well.

I think that these sites give good tips do not think that it completely frustrates a good project but suggests what you can listen to!

Absolutely agree

I also believe you HAVE to do your own research, but maybe a rating system with rough grades could help. THis way you dont have to waste your own research on a F-rated ICO....

I have an idea about rating systems too. Majority of them are paid for at good review. I know only couple of them that looks honest, but I am not sure - this is crypto. IcoDrops and icoanalytics right now looks legit. But the situation can be changed quickly. Maybe it will be nice to have ico rating system on blockchain. Any thoughts?

At the moment I trust only ICE Drops. There is a really fair system of project evaluation and points paid places by the mark Sponsored.

In my opinion these rating systems just making money for their creators and nothing more, because it can't ever say you correctly if the project will gather soft or hardcap, will it be succesful or scam and other things

here at Foxico we implement completely different system where all ratings will be given by community members. If you are interested in testing you can leave your mail contacting @foxicoteam at Telegram and we will notify you as soon as it is released.

I complete discern the ICO adjudjing audits as a action and psychoanalyze the course of action close to myself. I credit a becoming test should each the besides be finished since we are adorning money in the project.

Depends on the platform. Some are pay to list, pay to be in the top, etc. while other's are completely honest. It seems like there's some decent feedback on which sites are honest or dishonest in this thread, but like everything else with crypto, DYOR.

It's very helping for me, I can choose good good bounty program with check their ICO. And usually good ICO project have good Bounty program too.

Current ratings help to choose a project for investment. But as we know, it's better to trust only yourself, but in some cases you need to listen to the opinion of well-known and experienced analysts.

in my opinion considering ico rating or any words from some influence people will not make me believe 100%. each of them had their own business and purposes. all you have to do is only make your own research on some ICO to select very good one from it and im sure it will more satisfy you when you take your profit from your investment. i would rather not to listen other prediction about some project, only balanced review i should consider.

I agree with you, I personally don't also believe the ratings and the positive comments of other popular cypto influencer as some of them are paid and maybe some have investments in that particular project.

as I would like to think considering ico rating or any words from some impact individuals won't influence me to accept 100%. every one of them had their own business and purposes. you should simply just make your own exploration on some ICO to choose great one from it and im beyond any doubt it will more fulfill you when you take your benefit from your speculation.

Do you think the current rating system should be changed?

Getting a good ICO to invest in is not a  question of rating rather, it's deliberate attempt to find out the best ICO project out there that will support your believe and have potential for real return on your investment.

I hate current rating system! People see these corrupted estimations and then make an investment decision based on these 5 star rating. The only trusted agency is ICO drops. Although they are russians, they don't allow russians projects to be listed, because such projects tends to be failing

Quite doubtful ratings on ICObench, because sometimes bad projects sometimes have a good rating and do not even collect a softcap.

they need to pay attention, but not the most important thing. most often shoot those projects that have one unknown expert

I do not look at any ICO rating except the one that I make from doing my own research. One thing that I have come to realize is that these ICO rating websites can simply be paid to give good ratings to certain ICOs even if they are not that good. Money speaks. That is why it is best for everyone to learn to research into the ICOs they want to invest in by themselves.

None 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 be 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.

Some of the rating pages do give a little bit more of trust and checking, mostly those related to strong and long standing review with plenty of valuations and a check for the ICO teams.

Those crypto ratings are only used as a badge to be displayed on their website just to make their platform interesting or to make their project more convincing that it has a future in the market. After the ICO, those ratings were just a bluff and you will end up disappointed. The higher the ratings, the higher the money they paid to that website. Video updates with the project is more convincing for me than those fake ratings.

I advise you not to trust the ratings, but to conduct the analysis of projects personally.

yes, it helped me find an ICO project with good progress in the future. especially now, when many scam ICO, but I don't fully trust the ICO rating, because sometimes it's just project manipulation.

websites and whitepapers always become a barometer to see the good ICO.

I don't believe in the rating platform. I think the rating platform definitely needs income since it takes time to sort it out. So this may lead to the objectivity of the rating company.

With the emergence of a large number of ICO projects, the current rating system can no longer satisfy the reference of authenticity and development potential. A better rating system needs to be developed.

I think that famous ICO ratings can`t describe the real picture, because everyone can buy this "rating". BUT I can check real scams there and it`s very good for me.

of course Current ICO rating systems can be a reference in every research and analysis, you are made easy in every choice even though you have to keep researching it and reading white paper as your trace for investment.

ICO rating systems is very reliable and honest about ICOs that are rated in the website. But when investing don't depend on ICO rating systems because even though they are reliable you still need to think by yourself whether you will invest or not

Any ideas for the new rating system?

Foxico is here with amazing news! The new web site version is ready. 

The main feature integrated in the new logic is that ALL projects now can be rated by community members. Thus all ratings will be the reflection of community opinion. 

NO MORE AFFILATE/ CORRUPTED/ UNFAIR RATINGS!

Join Foxico, rate projects and share your opinion with others.

To see the new logic description please take a look

 https://foxico.io/howitworks 

We are constantly working on the development so please follow our news to stay informed when additional sections are ready.

Please note - We have not moved user database so you have to register again.

NOTE: If you added a project to the old Foxico and would like to edit details - use the same email for registration or contact edit@foxico.io from the email you set as a contact mail for a project.

I tend to trust most of the ICO rating websites but I can definitely imagine that some of them are being paid to promote some projects, after all, this is internet.

Hard to state, however in the event that we consider it, everybody needs to get by one means or another. Thusly it would be intelligent for this sort of destinations to give some sort of reward to organizations that will remunerate them for doing as such. Indeed, I don't think it is by one means or another helpful for organizations to do as such as fewer and fewer financial specialists are going out on a limb of putting resources into ICOs. Be that as it may, I would state they are doing it in any case to establish a connection and acquire the delicate top at any rate (it is a significant achievement atm). In any case, in the event that I know whether there are destinations like that? Regardless of whether I endeavor to deny it, the vast majority of them are most likely doing as such infrequently. The main great strategy is claim look into and a touch of fortunes Wink.

That would jeopardize the reputation of that ICO rating site and would no longer be a trusted one. But as you have said, it is highly probable to happen. After all, crypto is business and people are here to make money.

RAtings are good thinks, has to be taken carefully but if you are in crypto, you can recognize which is good, or bad and even worse rating site can help with consideration process. It is market as any other.

I do not think that now there is any kind of honest rating system, everything that exists today, some strange sites that create a strange rating and assign it, probably it will look strange now, but I do not believe them at all.

At this point in time, I do not consider them relevant. The market is now very unpredictable, which has a very negative impact on the fees at ICO. Very often, good projects cannot even collect a softcap. Although there is another side of the coin - they ask too much. I think SCO would be ideal in this situation.

I recommend that you do your own research on all the charges against these ICO rating websites and treat them as lightweight. Most of these rating sites give their ratings to the highest bidders, and even some have very high ratings for fraudulent items. I don't want to name it.

The ICO rating platforms is a good tool to obtain information about an ICO. There is also less chance to participate in an ICO Scam. Curiously I have observed that some high-ranking ICOs their tokens after ICO reach the exchange list with a low price. While other ICOs with a less rating the price of the Token is good at least in the first exchange list.

Great! I think the Foxico initiative is excellent. The more transparent the reviews of the ICOs will be better for the community and we have the duty and the capacity to evaluate a project because in the end we will be the users of those projects.

We also have a great responsibility to tell the world that a new project is underway. Every day we must be more demanding and not allow the Scam project to damage our crypto space.

There are some questions about the new rating system that is implemented at Foxico. Bellow you can find a brief explanation:

Behind each rating stands a weight (that is acquired by quality of this person's ratings) that influences the final score.

Anyone who rates can be simply liked/disliked by others members and it influences the weight of this particular expert. Therefore the final score of an expert who got a lot of dislikes does not influence the total score of a project and his scoring has low weight as a result.

For example when you see someone rated a scam with a 10 you simply dislike it just as others 10 people do and this person (who rated) loses weight immediately and later his score doesn’t influence the total final score.

Math stands behind the system that leads to fair ratings.

Each rating finally is a reflection of community opinion.

Have any further questions? Take a look at https://foxico.io/howitworks

Try not to confide in evaluations. Most are paid administration where you get high appraisals for paying piece low evaluations in the event that you don't pay them. Best ICO with potential for immense rates of profitability is the Trufield venture ICO. This energizing task will alter social insurance for many individuals. Trufield will give free wellbeing information administration frameworks in creating nations. The Pre-ICO is live and open to all speculators, so purchase your tokens at 25% markdown. Purchase Trufield token and take in more about the task here at http://Trufield.com or http://Trufield.io.

hello I'm trying to participate in the bounty where the ICO rating in icobench is above 3.3. I trust the ICO rating when choosing a bounty. but with investments you need to conduct an in-depth analysis.

I dont trust rating at all, i always do my own research to buy or to participated in campaign, if i like the idea after reading the whitepaper i always buy small amount and participating on its bounty if available

Actually, I use an ico rating system to check for projects. If I see a highly rated project, I now pick the project to scrutinize it more and more better. Its always a stepping stone for my research as I use it to make my research

The ratings do not reflect real value, because ICOs don´t have a real value in that sense, they only evaluate the likelyhood of success and the price set for that possible earning.