Bitcoin Forum

Nowadays there are many projects, it is not easy to judge on new project, good or not, some people think the ico rating websites may help to take your decision, others think this ICO rating websites provide fake rating due to new project can pay fees to this ICO websites and get high rating.
SO, If you find good project, is it important to you this new good project should be listed in ICO rating websites?

I would if the project is good. But most of the ICO rating sites provide fill up forms to list the project and why wouldn't a good project be listed on such sites?
The ICO rating sites may ask money for promotion or better rating but they also provide detailed information in a predictable format which is easy to access for interested people for every listed project. They even contact the team members for KYC that makes investors more secure knowing who people are actually operating the project.

ICO rating websites aren't all true on their jobs ,they sometimes get paid for rating from developers ,I won't rely on them if I were you , project listing in ICO rating websites or not doesn't state the fact that its not a scam project, there are some good signs that good projects used to have.

1) professional teams
They always have past histories of achievements ,this kind of teams will be able or capable to handle any fuck up wannabe that might show up when the production is on.

2) Are the teams who they claim to be?
I've came across projects when hunting for bounties that the teams are fake,the scammer used some kind of software to swap peoples faces off and merge another pic ,they name the teams any names they want. I detected by using picture search engines .

3) shady business
Some projects are liars in disguise, they aren't straight and careless about their investors ,keeping secrets and the most important one is they always work in the shadows ,anonymously, no office address ,no LinkedIn accounts ,no teams ,nothing

If a project is a real project then they won't have anything to hide ,they always tend to come out plain in the open

Me personally, I don't tolerate this kind of projects that is not listed on legitimate ICO reviews because they are more likely just to turned out to be scam because they even don't have the money to promote their ICO on some review ICO's so I guess they will be just gone in the future. They are not fully ready, that's what I mean.
If ICO project is listed on some legitimate review ICO website there is an assurance for all investors because someone said it is legit and true.

You won't see ICOs not being listed in any of these ICO review sites as long as they have ANN here. These rating sites will "review" them for free and give them low to average scores. They then go to these ICO telegrams and post something like "Hello, your ICO has been listed at xxxxxxx.com". With that being said, I would not really much on these rates when planning to invest.

I will if the project will very known to me and vision and product will good. I Don't trust any review by any ico review sit. Because   most of the case the reviews can be paid. So first investigate Own self  then try to see any review to find out  more information.

I always check projects on such sites, for me it is very important! but not to all sites need to believe, I dissapointed in ICObench

Most ICO projects pay money to these ICO rating websites to be rated high and there has been a lot of projects that rated high on these websites but ended as scam projects. I choose to participate in new projects based on my personal research on the project, the team behind it and how things are done at their social media sites.

I have never used ICO rating. I have my own criteria for choosing projects such as white paper, a roadmap, a project team ... but I don’t trust rating sites. I believe more in my strength and well done research.

if the project is worth to invest why not,, those ico review website are paid by those dev team to promote their project and gain more investors. not knowing mostly project that are listed on ico review website are scam or fraud or  after their ico no intention to  continue their project.. now the new trend is the IEO much better than ico ;D

ICO rating from guys we don't know is insane. Guys can be paid to make positive remarks about the project even if it is not, it happened to a lot of projects i followed already. So for me it is useless for me to have an ICO rating before participating in an ICO. I just do a research on the project and see to it that it had a very good use case as that is one of my criteria in selecting a good project.

I don't care about that. I certainly pay attention to the rating of the project, but this is not an essential condition that affects my decision. Basically, I myself conduct my research and if I like the project and I see a prospect in it, then I do not pay attention to whether it is on the rating ICO site.

Of course iwon't invested in that ico. I will invest my money into a good project that has been rated and has a good review. But, i prefer invest my money into STO or IEO project than ICO project. STO is trustworthy and IEO is profitable for me.

Very useful information, i would like you to post more information that guide others to choose the project

ICO ratings are nothing related to the quality of the project because they just can be bought by giving the enough money to the rating sites so don't trust those and there are lot of projects even more profitable without even listing on those sites.

I totally agree with you, this rating websites looking for money what ever the project will be.

It's been proven and I've participated on one project that has a very high rating in ICO only to end up scamming investors, a good project should do away with ICO rating, it's an open secret that they are paid to get good reviews and rating, this makes them conniving with dubious and scam project.

Unfortunately  some ico rating websites list a scam project even the team pass KYC.

5 stars for many projects but look where they are now, slaghtered from trends and other big coins. Do wake up and realize that market is over saturated and there simply isn't that much ETH to move after to ICO's era. The only viable stuff over these sites are quick Infos, or slightly lighter analysis on their project's nature, they do not comply any of your loses so why do you trust them solely.

It is not a secret ICO rating websites charge a fees to increase the rating.

Before it was appreciated to take some suggestions from ICO rating websites but I don't think they are plausible these days. Because many of them can do paid reviews which is unreliable, they can give good reviews to crap projects as long as they will pay the fee they ask.

It is already been happening in the new projects and I don't care of the rating is low at least I've found it reliable than considering those high rating but there is no guarantee of being a reputable one. But we can't deny that investors will mostly look into high rating projects and I don't know if they still considering those ratings today since they know about paid reviews.

Some newbies probably are considering those reviews if they are looking for one. We have our own way of determining the good factor of an project but these days are different now from before. Well, before those reviews are very encouraging knowing that they really are good projects but today, they aren't anymore.

at first (meaning the first days or may first 2 or 3 weeks) when the ICO listing/rating websites were created they were honest and were revealing the most obvious scams to get the popularity they wanted. then as they gained that popularity and their website grew in traffic and rank they started demanding money from the very same scam projects to pay them to lie for them and basically advertise them as "trusted" and that is exactly what they did. because in the end the whole purpose of creating such websites was to make money and the scammers always pay the best bribes if it means they could scam more people and earn more as the result.

For me it doesn’t matter if it is listed or not as long as I know the project itself and the developers already have credibility in handling the said project. You know there are developers that are already known to be handling successful projects in the past. Besides, ICO ratings is not that reliable, we all know why and even if the project is listed, having high ratings does not guarantee that the project is not a scam but, nevertheless, I don’t see why a good project would refuse to be listed in ICO sites. First, that will a plus popularity and not to deny that there are investors that really consider listing to be a big deal.

I agree with you, but there few points must be consider, some new projects do not include known developers handling successful projects in the past, but i think known advisors with the team can help the projects.

Without any doubt, because all those rating websites can be paid and the more you pay, the better rating you are going to get. Make you own research and never take those ratings into consideration, because it is a lie.

Honestly ico rating websites doesn’t mean anything to me.. So i actually don’t trust anything these days. If the project is very good and if the team includes well known reliable persons i could think to invest in.

ICO rating website does not a guarantee that the project will be successful, it consider one the gauge but its only an opinion. The most reliable source is your own research. It's your investment, so you have to protect it.

But what if the team behind the project is unknown, i think this not mean the project is scam.

Absolutely, if the project and the team is good then why not, ico websites are not the parameter to invest, personally i have invested in more non hyped icos than the listed one's.

Most ICO projects do not apply for rating at ICO rating websites off late since many project managers have realized these ICO rating websites don't give exact ratings and sometimes some are paid to rate some projects high and due to that investors do not rely on ICO rating websites before making any decision. So if per my research I find out the project is good participating in but cannot be found on any rating website, I will still participate and hope for the best.

Exactly there's no honest ratings coming from so called legit sources, and for me what's important is you understand the project platforms. Before participation, dig deeper and scrutinize what's behind a certain ico then you decide after to whom to trust with.

The first thing to implement when going to participate in a certain new project is analyzing their team and project whether it is promising or not, having a real product, and trust enough or not. team with a good track record will be more trusted than only those are on the website rating score. So far, ICO ratings may give fake conditions and it doesn't guarantee that the projects are exactly legit. So, analyze more and do deeper research in order to know whether the project is trusted and promising or not.

But what if the investors are new in the markets, new investors may do not have experience to do research or analysing.
What you suggest?

Listed or not, the more important to me is the project, I don't trust the ICO rating because some of ICO rating websites are fake. I've heard that if you pay high to them you get perfect score or perfect rating, that's not good if you rely on their ICO rating possible some of their perfect rating ICO is a scam.

This is true pay more get more rating, but some see this websites is useful.

I don't really mind if the project not listed on ICO website rating. The important thing isn't only that. If the team good , the project is real and their community quite strong i would join with no doubt. Even web rating can give you false rating too

People should stop looking in ICOI rating sites, soon there will be no more rating sites, because they are ruining the crowdfunding by giving good rating to dubious and fake projects, people should just look on the potential of the coin in the market and don't rely on these scam ICO rating sites.

ICO rating websites are biased these days and there's no way of finding a good project through them. I try to analyze by myself whatever I can, and if I found the project bounty is managed by a good manager, I wouldn't hesitate to participate.

Depending on how you look good or not. ICO rating can help in deciding to join. Because at the ICO rating we can also see the achievements of a project team.

I do not trust the ico rating, because for me my analysis is more reliable than just looking at websites that cannot yet be used as a determinant of the success of a project especially the ico project

You know if an IEO is listed at a big exchange, almost all ICO rating websites already automatically list the IEO,,, so this means you are talking about IEOs on the smaller exchanges right?

I would of course, none of those things matter to me. But the things that do matter, if the IEO does well, means it will probably be listed anyway!

ico rating or any website rating is not all right and appropriate, even if you look at it, there are only a few who give an assessment and it's not credible, it's better to study carefully

I do not really believe with ICO Rating website, most of them are fake or this website already paid by this project itself to make this project rating High on their ICO Rating website...
I better research by myself or discuss in my telegram group, I have some telegram group that discusses an upcoming legit project that good for invest...

I don't think its important for a project to be rated by ICO rating website before investing in it. The truth of the matter is that most projects pay ICO rating websites to give them good ratings in order to lure investors into their scam project. My opinion is that, if the team behind a project is transparent and have a good idea in blockchain space then there is no need to be rated by ICO rating websites.

I do not pay much attention to what is written in ico rating, I prefer to study the project's whitepaper and see who is working behind the project and who is ready to be the partner

I think we know that the team of the various projects pay these rating sites only to be sponsored, so many scams have been evaluated with medium / high scores on these sites. in conclusion rating sites do not count for anything

I don't care with, ICO Review Website. Went i make my own due diligence and from my research, the project was really good then i will invest on it, ICO Website Review not really help me. Just take an example some of the projects have a good score but they can't handle the situation on the cryptocurrency market then the price/project got abandoned/fail. From that, we can see an ico review score cant determined the project its good/bad.

if the team inspires confidence, it already has previous experiences with icos, they are experts in the sector (crypto), perhaps a small sum i would invest anyway even if their project was not reviewed on any site in the sector...

The ICO rating website could not be a guide to decide to join with the team or not because they only give a rating based on what they know and the information for the project will not be the same as what we got. So if you can find a good project but that project is not listed in any ICO rating websites then you don't have to bother to think about the rating because you can get one good project and that is enough for you to join with the site. The rating itself can be fake and not true because the project needs to transparent to the public so people can know the truth of the project and they can decide to join or not.

Ofcourse. I have never been dependent on those kind of websites for reliable source of cryptocurrency startups rating . I usually do the research myself after going through the projects whitepaper and Roadmap.
I bet you will find loads of failed projects that were rated well on the rating websites

I am sorry, but as of now, even though a project was listed on many ICO's rating sites, I would not be immediately interested in the project. I don't have the faith to invest in a new project anymore. I prefer to invest in well-known coins instead on the new ones. Too many scams and too many projects failed in the past that gave me doubts.

Good ICO's will survive take a look at HST decision token, it survived the darkest days of the crypto bear market.

well yes will participate in a project if it is not listed on any IcO rating website but I will have to ask so many questions about the project to make my own assessment and know if I can invest in them or not

This look good, what the questions may we ask?

listed or not, as long as they don't do it in a large exchange like Binance. I will not join the project. everyone knows, believing in projects that sell tokens in less popular exchanges will only make us lose. so it doesn't matter whether the project is listed or not. what is certain is that we have to find out about the project, never just believe it.

not everything is like that. depending on how the developer manages their market demand. Previous projects can overcome that, even if only released on KUCOIN, or HITBTC they can maximize their market. the community formed must be really strong.
remember not to rely on exchange. you have to analyze the project more deeply, you will get what you are looking for.

When I research about a new project, I usually look at the ICO rating websites. However, I do other research myself to. And at the end of my researches, if I trust that project, then I can participate in that project without looking at the ICO rating websites. But for do that, that project really should be good for me.

There are like hundreds of those ICO rating websites and only a few of them are popular or served as trustworthy, being managed by few people can be a contrast to most of the people's opinion, those websites can also be made easily and I think some even manipulate it to gain from promoting projects. Check the project deeply and understand what's the product they wanted to produce and will it be accepted by many?

The ICO Rating Website is not a guarantee of the validity of an ICO project, although we may also not consider the ICO rating bad but it cannot be a reference for a good ICO, everything can be manipulated.

I  hope if you list the name of ico rating websites that you have experience with and think it is helpful, just to help others.

I really like icodrops. They know how to select a qualitative projects. If the ico that interests me is on their website, it is a green light for me.
My next project in which I will be participating is Eleven01 (https://icodrops.com/eleven01/).
There is a lot of talk in the russian-speaking community around this ico.
Eleven01 is becoming more popular every day. Great vision and product is also ready, very competent team.
I don't want to skip this ico, I will follow the news and suggest you do the same.
Website - https://www.eleven01.io
ANN thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139939.0

I don't trust the ICO ratin gsites that much. You see all these ICOs that are really highly rated, but only have a few people rating them. They can certainly be useful sites for getting an overview of what is available, but I personally would trust the more in-depth research that you have to do yourself. The ratings on these site I don't think are reliable.

No I wouldn't. Most of those ICO rating sites are paid so that doesn't help. It could also be faked to attract people to their ICO rating site. You don't know exactly what they base all their criteria as only some of it is explained. How they give  "review" with a "score" . Who are the reviewers and why should we listen to them?


Yes, and it is personal votes. Even if you know nothing about the project people could give it a high rating because they like the pictures or something stupid.

Yes, most of them are paid ones. So if a project has the money to pay those ICO rating sites, they will be listed. Otherwise, wait for your time to shine. And maybe, the higher your payment is, the higher your rating is. Don't trust those ICO rating sites. Do your own due diligence. It is better to do your own research and look for the real happenings of the project.

I will participate and just ignore the ratings, those ratings are useless since you can pay to get a good rating and get away scamming people, these rating sites should be held accessories to the crime for giving these projects a high rating although they are obviously a scam project.

rating is not proof that ico will be good or the project will be successful. in my opinion all will depend on the team working there, because it could be that the rating on the website is fake, or just sweeten it. My advice is not to focus too much on the rating on the website, see the team and how it works.

No, project listed on ico rating websites is not important for me because I won't trust the rating score and expert reviews, like you said that it's allow people to pay for listed and reviews, ico rating websites is only a place for me to check currently latest ico list.

of course not, because if I think the project is good and profitable for investment, then I will not care whether the project is listed on an ICO rating or not, as you say that the project can pay ICO rating to give a good rating for the project, therefore I don't really care about ICO rating, so I will continue to invest in the project if in my opinion it will give me profit even though the project is not listed on ICO rating.

No, you do not rely on the ratings and reviews given by ICO rating websites. They used to have the trust and credibility but now no more. They used to reflect the real and honest-to-goodness reviews of crypto projects, but now they will just give you stars and high ratings according to how much you pay them. The result and proof? Look at those who earned many stars and high ratings and how they are now. Many of them have already died.

The process of listing new projects to the ICO review pages is extremely necessary. It also plays a very important part in promoting the popularity and search of partners. On the other hand, it limits risks from puppet projects and masks fraud. caution should be given to such projects. Warn it for a responsibility to the community. However, do not put blind faith in ICO review pages, consider it yourself long enough before deciding anything.

I will still invest in it, because the ICO rating website is no longer needed, it is just a website where you can quickly learn about the project. But when investing in an ICO, you need to learn many things rather than some information on the ICO rating site

I participated in one bounty campaign where the ICO got a very high rating but now a scam site the IOC was Restoken until now they are now pulling down the high rating and exchange it as a scam ICO because the ICO paid a huge amount to get listed, so we cannot trust this rating sites.

Yes if I have done my due diligence on the project and found out its a good one. Most of these ICO review sites gives paid reviews and they are not a standard for measuring the success of a project. Irrespective of the fact that having it listed on ICOdrops will be more encouraging to investors but then, it doesn't guarantee success and legitimacy of a project

I always judge whether or not a project is good by doing its own research, because I have never believed in rating a website, their website rating is a paid website, and they faked the rating of the project because they were paid

Most of rating sites give rates for projects based on how much payments those projects pay them. Consequently, there are significant biases on ratings of those sites. I don't believe on ratings from third-party sites, and never take those ratings into my mind. DYOR is key thing to investigate potential of projects.

No i would not participate because the rating sites have experts in their teams in many fields and i trust in they experience and fine nose.

At first i think it only rumour, but since a lot of people discuss it maybe it is right that ICO rating site give their ratings depends on how project pay them and not be independent. If me since first i never see ICO rating site and sometime look from it's bounty rewards.

I usually do not depend on ico rating websites and i make decision based on my own personal research and not because a ico site rank it high. it is good to know that these ico websites cannot be trusted, as they collect money from most projects before they can rank them well.

I stop using these ICO rating sites after I've found out that they are giving a fake rating in exchange for payment, they are blind and conniving to scam projects, that is why so many people got scammed because of these fake ICO rating sites, they are part of the problem.

Definitely yes, because I hate rating agencies, those are shillers and nothing valuable they can't bring to crypto industry.
no one believe their ratings except newbies and it is disaster

I will participate.  At the moment, already taking part in one such project.  In the past, also made projects that are not listed in the rating sites.  And they brought me income for my work.  So, the main thing is that the project was useful and of high quality.

I can contribute to a good project even if it is not listed on ICO rating site (there are thousands liste there and many turn out to be scams), but it should have some sort of media presence or publication on reputable outlets. Those are more reliable. And do not think any smart investor makes an investment decision solely on the merits of an ICO listing site

Ain't no matter of how many thousands of adds you been made if that certain project hasn't too seen any market potential, it still is drowning down.
ICO rating is just baseless if it is all just paid reviews. People would love to see their performance rather than relying on reviews/feedbacks.

Absolutely, I would invest in them if they have a good product and getting a lot of traction. ICO rating websites should not be basis alone, in analyzing the project. It's a good place to gather some information, but don't rely too much on them.

I don't give a damn about ICO rating websites. They are trying to position themselves as the absolute statue of the authority on the matter.

However in reality these review aggregation platforms are all complete trash, and most indirectly try to blackmail projects into paying for promotion in return for a better score or more exposure.

If a project is likely to succeed, it doesn't need the minimal traffic brought in by these sites.

ICO rating sites are not the regulators of crypto, their rating literally mean nothing on the viability of any project so I won't participate on a project because it is listed on ICO rating site and as well because a project is not listed doesn't mean it isn't a great project.

I saw such projects, but on such sites some guarante we have! Not every scam will be on rating sites with KYC!  But sometimes scam projects buying places on sites, unfortunately

Personally, I am not participating in the ICO anymore.
I believe that you can buy coins later, after they be listed  on the exchange

For me, ico rating websites do not judge my involvement in ico or ieos
My focus before investing is the project and the product they aim to produce

For a good investment, you need to go for zero privacy tokens , blockchain products amongst others

I would never ever consider investing in a project that did not list in an ICO rating site, this is not because I trust the ratings themselves, it's more because I would feel that the team behind the project has not done sufficient marketing for the project, there are few exception though... Like if the project is a Korean project, many of them tend to prefer investors from their region.

yes I will participate in an ICO if it is not listed in any ICO rating website and be proud participating in it because not all projects are willing to pay to be rated on such ico rating websites knowing most projects pays these websites for higher ranking which is highly not fair to the crypto industry or market in general. Participating in such an ico is personal and I will as an individual because off late ico websites have no influence over investors.

there are only a few trusted ico list and i thought that the good ico should not always be listed on any of rating site. as long as it has created by a trusted or very well known the developer and that doesn't need a lot of publicity.

I would look at the project team and what it offers and whether they have a finished product
if there seems to me a project interesting, I would participate in it

there are a number of new projects that have indeed brought attention to the crypto market this year. I see that there is harmony that has finished doing their IEO and success with the increase in the price of their tokens, I feel fortunate to be one of the IEO participants who can benefit from the new project. and now it starts again. but it is not a problem because this new project must be experienced, it needs gradual development to strengthen their markets.

Even the ICO is listed on different ICO rating websites, I will not invest on it because getting listed on that websites doesn't mean that it will be a successful project in the future. The ratings on these sites are getting paid by different project developers. The higher the payment, the higher the rating and vice versa.

I'm not an investor in ICO but as an advice, don't use those ICO rating websites as your only basis in investing. Do some in depth research on every project and you must have a basis whenever you invest.

It is fair to note that the success of a project does not depend only on the rating. Often the project’s fate depends on many factors, which, given the volatility of the market behavior and various manipulations with them, turn any rating into a temporary forecast.

This rating sites are not 100% accurate or most of them are highly influenced somehow so it is very hard to rely on the ratings of this sitr to measure any project success, between i have seen some real serious project that don't care much about rating sites but more concerned about putting out a solid project.

I do not see the point in rating websites, because they are offering a paid promotion to all projects. The more you pay, the better rating you are going to get, so yes I would definitely participate in a project that is not listed on rating websites if it is legit.

Most people say that review sites are paid to advertise projects, although I don't know if this is real or fake but if everything is really fair, people don't need to complain but the truth and too many complaints proved that these review sites are having problems, so if I am a person who has read a lot about discussions about the fairness of these websites, I will certainly still participate in a good project even if it is not appreciated. Because our comments and searches will be more accurate, others' assessments are very objective and not detailed

The ICO experience of 2017/2018 have made a lot of persons wiser, personally I have suspended from investing in ICO's due to some ugly experiences and would rather buy when already listed on exchanges, Of course, certain ICO certain validations from ICO rating sites go a long way to give the hype and some details about a particular project but it does not determine how successful it would be, infact recently I have discovered that it is not those that have had so much publicity and ratings that eventually end up being very successful

Whether the project is on such rating or not, I personally would not invest in any. ICOs in the last year has been a complete failure and mere ratings isn't going to change anything, scammers have infiltrated the ICO makets and finding a good project is quite an uphill task.

And to think if it, most websites give distorted and fake ratings, as they are paid to do so, I cannot put my money into an ICO simply cos one website rates it good.
I only choose well established altcoins and put a little fraction of my fund into them.

it depends on the website that released the project. most sites only come from ranking projects that pay them. it is indeed helpful, because one form of advertising is good and it shows if the developer is also serious about promoting.

sites that provide a rating on ICO are indeed widely used to find some basic information about the ICO project. before registering I will usually analyze more deeply about the project. and for projects that are not registered on the site, maybe I personally will find it difficult to analyze. because i have to keep looking for some information before doing research

I almost never visit sites with ICO project ratings. I just rate them almost independently or make a decision taking into account the information that I receive here on the forum. Of course, I cannot say that my choice is always good, however, there will always be a part of unsuccessful and even fraudulent ICO projects that we will join. This should be optimistic.

As for me, all the ICO I used to joined were listed to an ICO review, though the ratings has no effect for me on choosing a project to support. I would rather choose a project that is listed to a good review sites because this indicate that they are willing to give their details necessary for double checking of their authenticity and identity.

Ratings given by third party websites should only be used (if actually used) as additional information, and not an essential one, for investors. Personally, I do my own research, and make my own ratings first, scan my ratings, and research results many times. When I felt satisfied with what I finished, I will look at ratings from other sources, and find out which factors cause differences between mine and those ratings.

No I won't invest in any project that's not listed on ICO rating websites,new project should have enough to get listed on ICO rating websites and it doesnt mean that i rely on ICO rating websites to find good projects but it's a must

It depends actually. I do not literally depend on the ICO website for their ratings because it might be biased in some other ways, we never know. So if you want to invest your earned money, better to do your own homework. Search on your own and based your judgment only on yourself. But of course, ICO website helps us in ways they summarized all the ICOs and picked the best among the rest.

There are websites that haven't got listed on these rating sites, but have good potential. Even with ICO rating website there are paid services. It is always good to go through the project details and do your own research before making an investment. Even much rated projects have failed, so making ones own decision seems to be better than following ICO rating websites. From my view those websites can be kept as a reference.

This is a good question rating website loosing there reputation day by day they providing fake rating and the whole system is running on money.
and many people not recommend this kind of website but it is still a need to make presence on online platform that's why many good project also need to list there project. every investor should do research on the project like i always do research and mostly of time i invest in good project currently i found Moozicore this project is very good project and it full fill my expectation that i want from every project.

https://tokensale.moozicore.com/ (https://tokensale.moozicore.com/)   

Maybe some of the rating sites are providing fake rating, but not all, ICODrops trying to make an objective score and most of the projects are without any score on their website. Of course if project is good, it is not necessary rule to be listed on such websites, but in practice - if project is good it appears in all media immediately.

That's it. And I would prefer to call those ratings as subjective ratings. Subjective because those ratings mostly given based on money paid to third-party rating websites, and not based on quality of projects. Such subjective ratings contain so many biases and should not be used as componental indicators to assess quality of projects.

Honestly talking I do not trust any ICO rating website, not now or ever will I do so. Most of these ico rating websites are more than scam websites and mostly post what the projects wants them to post and that has made their ratings not reliable or dependable for investing. So if the project is promising but not listed in any ico website, I will still participate.

Yes, I am participating in Temtum project, When I am interested in this project and search for it on google. But there is no clear information, and I continue to join it. Until now this project has surpassed my expectations

We all know that rating sites charge projects for placing them on their platform, but I doubt that they make an objective assessment of the projects that they placing. Therefore, I use rating sites only as an additional source of information about a project, but ratings have never been a decisive factor for me when choosing a project for investment.

in fact, not all projects that don't have an ico rating are bad, but as a benchmark in my opinion, it's better to look for those who have ratings other than we can compare our analysis with people we can be more sure, but if you want to try that doesn't have a rating site as long as you are sure try it but very risky if the research you tried is wrong.

Few projects are listed on ICObench that you can't find on other ICOrating websites and that doesn't mean they are bad projects,what you need is getting better at doing research

Participation in new projects has nothing got to do with their rating on ico rating scale. Currently, only few investors even have time to consider rating from ico websites because most of these ico rating websites are not genuine and do not pot real ratings of new projects. I will participate in a new project if it is not listed on any ico rating website but legit based on my research.

not all ICOs listed on ICO rating websites are promising and vice versa.  I will definitely participate in the new project even though it is not registered and get a good rating on the ICO rating website but the ICO project must be really interesting, the team is real, and the concept is very good.

sometimes ICO projects that keep on appearing make us like playing gambling, which we believe will be successful it turns out to be a failure and what we believe will fail it turns out to be a success  :D

projects that not rated in any ico site doesn't mean they have no good quality.usually they just not registered yet or maybe lazy to contact ico site admin.but so far almost all projects reviewed and rarely to see projects have no review, cause its very usefull to attract their investors.

in my opinion it doesn't really matter but because now indeed new projects are becoming popular registered on several ICO sites so many do that, I see projects not because they have good ratings but I still see products, teams and communities on telegram

ICO rating websites provides us the summary of every good ICO based on their perspective. Though they cannot cover all since there are many projects launching almost every day so they may overlook some good projects. And we never know maybe they are paid to have a high rate on a certain project. But before I invest in a project, one thing that I do is to look in ICO rating websites to have an idea which they gave higher ratings. That gives me a lesser time to find good projects.

If the platform doesn't even list in the ico rating site is not a big problem as long as it was having a big community and i heard that a project like sero never get listed in various icorating site and icodrop is the only one that listed and it was making a huge profit for investors. Listed in a lot of ico rating site doesn't give a lot of guarantees if that platform will succeed.

I have the same position. These sites that publish information about the project rating exist for a long time, and many of them have proved that they are trusted resources. Therefore, I would stay away from the projects that are not mentioned and rated there, or if their rating is very low. It will be too risky to lose hundreds believing that you can finally earn thousands.

participation in a new project has got nothing really to do with listing on an ICO rating website. Even though that can be a source or add up to your research being done on the particular project but most importantly, participation in a bounty is based on a vivid research of many factors and I will participate in a new project if it is not listed but my research proves me right to participate.

Maybe no. Because if that project is good and there are many investors, it will definitely be listed on the ICO ranking site. I will never risk my money to invest in those projects

i will participate in a new project if it is not listed in any ICO rating website because I personally do not trust any ico rating website again since I just heard a rumor some projects pay these websites for high ratings. Participation in a new ico project is about what I have researched about the project and come out with and also the team behind it not purposely whether it is listed or not on any ico rating website.

I have invested in some projects that are not listed in any ICO websites this is basically because some of those projects do not even have an ICO website to begin with, these doesn't mean that they are not cool... Just do your due diligence on every investment opportunity.

There are so many great projects that has been performing well ever since they were invented and never for once listed on these ICO rating sites that I don’t trust that much, iCO rating site too does not have any special technique that they use other than the research they make like you and I while we have some other sites that will take money from projects for them to be listed.

The success of our project investment is in our hands, we are the one to decide if we want a very good project or not and not rating sites, we just have to do like every one of them does, like Binance does too in selecting their IEO projects, they make a very solid research first on the project and the team before accepting to promote whatever is of them if we can also do this, then we are good to go.

To be honest,for me it is absolutely not important,when choosing a project, I try to look at other things that characterize the project.

Even though a project is reviewed by a rating website, in the end we will still do our own research. Projects that are not listed on the website do not mean that they are not good, they may not be known by reviewers. As good as any rating on a website, it only becomes our second opinion and not a reference for us to invest

We cannot fully rely on ICO rating websites as some ratings are manipulated as these are given by taking money from ICO companies. We have to do our own research before joining any ICO as listing on ICO rating site is not a guarantee of  any type.

I don't even recommend ICO to list their coin in ICO rating, they should just concentrate on bounty hunting and building their community, it's costly to list in ICO rating sites, but building your community and communicating with them is not.

After reading about one report on ICOBENCH I stopped looking on ICObench.

I can't rely only on ICO rating sites to judge the project, I check these ranking websites, but I first do my own careful research about the project before making the decision of participating in its bounty campaigns (or even investing in the ICO/IEO). The ICO rating sites are only a helpful factor, after you make your own research.

I very rarely visit ICO rating sites because I don’t really trust them. I look through new projects myself and decide whether or not to participate in their ICO bounty campaigns. I developed my own criteria for participation, according to which I work. Rating sites are sometimes worth reading for a general idea of projects, but I am not completely guided by their opinions. They do not reflect the real situation in this market.

I always check projects on such sites, for me it is very important! but not to all sites need to believe, I dissapointed in ICObench

Because ICO website rating is not the main parameter of project success. I used to believe in ICO rating, but after several failures due to being fooled by high ratings but it turned out to be a scam, like Hashcards, Myriads, etc., finally, I decided to not stick to ICO rating website again. I prioritize independent analysis and consult with more experienced friends.

in my opinion, I will invest in the ICO project that I am taking part in, because they are also provided in a good exchange, so I think that is also a good way to hold it in the long run.

You won't see ICOs not being listed in any of these ICO review sites as long as they have ANN here. These rating sites will "review" them for free and give them low to average scores. They then go to these ICO telegrams and post something like "Hello, your ICO has been listed at xxxxxxx.com". With that being said, I would not really much on these rates when planning to invest.

ico rating sites has no influence on the overall success of a project, i know some people place much value to ratings and that gives them a bit of assurance to support the project,
i have personally ask this question on a project i found interesting in their telegram and the admin told me only their work will speak not some fake review and ratings, and true to his words the project did exceptionally well.

ico rating not fully true about their analisys to some projects.we know they could be paid if we want to get high rating in their site.the projects successfull depend on their own team,if they could deliver and build good product to market ofcourse investors will happy to hold their token / coin and even could add their stock again.personally ico rate didn't give significant influence to me.i am prefer to use my own analisys and feeling.

Participation in a new project on my side has got nothing to do with listing on Ico rating websites with reasons been that, there are a lot of projects that these Ico rating sites rated high and at the end of it all came out as scam projects. Why would you then trust such a rating website if they come out again with ratings on new projects. Do your own research and decide whether to promote the project or not.

I participate in projects based on my own opinion and research about the project and don't really consider the opinion of ico rating websites.
And this is because most of these ICOs website are not that trustworthy and their rating are often influenced by money.

More websites were into usage to give ratings and review the ICO'S and new projects that are getting added to the cryptocurrency network. Same as that of the paid service to list tokens and altcoins to the exchanges now ico rating websites have paid services to rate the projects. This way there are more and more possibilities for low grade projects get good ratings. Better is to analyze and do the investment.

2016 and 2017 ICO rating website is a big deal to any project doing an ICO!
But these years? who cares about that RATING SITE? it is a PAID ICO RATING WEBSITE now!
The bigger the amount you will pay the better the rate you will get, and it is not new! many people already know that!

With the recent SEC release about ICO rating, this just shows that most if not all these rating websites can't give one an objective analysis. Ho many projects on these rating websites that has high rating ended being a scam, many. This is my advice to you, do you own research, I don't know what would be given to BTC in 2009 by these rating websites because nobody would give them money

Either now no good projects are conducting their ICO, or rating sites do not notice any good projects. There is absolutely nothing to choose.

After analyzed the project, I always make the decision myself. Even if these are unsuccessful investments, I will answer for this myself without blaming others for this.

I do not need ICO rating sites to approve and list a project, most especially these days that so many of them cannot be trusted. They are just there to make publicity, which I now feel that is what they are meant for.
I have seen a lot of such projects, that succeeded tremendously, without listing on such sites.

Many have participated in several projects that were not listed in ico rating websites but yet benefited from promotion the project since the project succeeded. The success of any project is not limited to the rate it gets from these ico rating websites and this makes up my decision to participate in any project even if it is not listed on any ICO rating website.

Not all ICO and IEO projects present at ICO ranking sites can be successful. I often check the ICO rankings, in the ranking list of those projects getting good grades. After I checked directly into the project site does not correspond to that in the ICO rankings. We should directly review the project and do some research and so we can certainly get great results.

I will not invest in a project, if the project has some discrepancies both from the team, Roadmap, website or their social media, we know that investing in an ico or ieo has a high enough risk, so, we really need some references about how the project.
And currently many sites are indeed reviewing an ongoing ico or ieo, but it all depends on ourselves in determining the choice to invest or not in an ico or ieo  project.

One of the first actions that I take after making a decision about investing is checking the project on all rating sites.Then I make my own analysis.Maybe someone is either deceiving or adding an estimate to the project, but they can’t lie absolutely everything.Right? The average denominator still exists.

I do not make ICO rating website as a reference to join IEO / ICO even bounty. I have had a bad experience with ICO rating, I was stuck with a scam even though the project has an almost perfect rating since then I ignored the ICO rating. I am more interested if the advertisement of the project appears on several large influential websites such as coinmarketcap. I also joined one of the trusted channels that provide reviews on IEO and ICO for investment, I think that's better.

This will only depend on the basic purpose of this new project in the crypto ecosystem and how relevant the project will be to the entire world's ecosystem. Once this project has these characteristics, I will surely invest in even though it is not listed on any ICO rating website. With these characteristics, it will definitely make it on an ICO rating website.  With such projects, you are definitely assured of them having a mass adoption in no time.

I used only a reliable crypto rating site and i never try to believe any other crap rating site just like icobench and icorating and both are total bullshit. I will participate in ico which was listed in my reliable ico rating site based on how much successful project that already listed in in that site.
Only a few sites that can be marked as good sites and so far more than 90% ico rating sites are craps and can't be trusted.

My participation in new projects has got nothing to do with whether it has been listed on any ico rating websites or not. These ICO rating sites are not trustworthy in the sense that some even rate scam projects higher on the rating scale and these projects at last are revealed or considered scam projects. I do my own research and take a decision to whether participate or not but not considering whether listed or not on these ico rating websites.

Ofcourse I would join new project if the team has prior experience of ICOs even I don't believe in ICO rating websites it can be manipulated I feel so, so it does not matter to me. There are some other factors also to participate in new project I will check those if find all good then I will definitely join the project.

Personally, participating in new projects has got nothing to do with whether this new project is being listed on ico rating website. What matters most to me is the idea behind the project entering into the crypto industry. These websites are not trustworthy and provided my research on the project is positive, I just participate in it without considering whether it is listed or not on these fake ico rating websites.

Icon rating website don't determine what project will be successful or not, all they do is say what they believe  could be a successful project but it is left for investors to make their own decisions base on what they have read, do their own research, most serious project don't pay attention to ico rating sites.

I probably will depending on the project and the team behind it. It's true that there are several listing sites that will give you good rating with a certain amount of fee. But there are also legit and trusted listing websites (https://www.coincurb.com/?utm_source=lx) which provide all honesty to the crypto community and helps us verify their team through KYC. That's one of the most vital roles that listing sites do, if you see that the team is not verified, then you'll have doubts that they're not legit at all.

Well, i would consider that as a factor in finding the type of project that I'll like to invest in but would not consider it as the sole factor in making my decision. Actually, there are many other things one need ti check for before investing in any project. The ICo review sites do their own thing so the investor also has to his or her own thing.

It's true that some ICO rating sites like ICOBENCH and ICODROPS give more info about a new startup project, but I don't entirely rely on their ratings. Hence I can participate in a token sale even if the project is not rated on ICO rating sites,  if I think the project is great and has huge future potentials.

On my behalf, participating in a new project has nothing do with whether it is being listed on these so called ICO rating websites or not. So far as the project seem promising with a great idea behind it, backed by a great team with good profile and the whitepaper makes sense, that is all. Many of these ICO rating websites have a part in promoting scam projects so I still will participate in a new project if it is not listed on these ICO rating websites.

Your very participation should have nothing in common with ico rating websites because most of thes ico rating websites are corrupt and are found of promoting scam projects by rating them higher on the ico rating scale which is very bad for the industry but this has thought me a lesson that my participation in a crypto project should never be based on an ico rating.

ICO rating websites have no inside news for investors, the information they use is shared by the devs on the open-source platforms. For choosing the project, some determinants are used in order to get the best ones out of the hundred projects. The data is the power but the known data should be available for all investors in my opinion, asking premium membership is not ethic.

If the investors look for the reliable source of information, asking directly from the experienced traders will be more suitable. ICO rating websites update their database once a 3 day period from my experience, the new projects also can pay for getting the better review from the ICO experts in this case. There are a similar type of the ICO rating sites which share the same ICO with different rating stars. The same project can be five stars on the ICOdrops but it has give a two-star rate on the ICOmarks website.

As a rule, I select and evaluate projects for joining the ICO signature campaign myself, without taking into account the opinions of rating campaigns. First of all, I’m interested in what this campaign will be engaged in, how useful its activities will be and therefore how much this new token will be in demand. Sometimes I take into account the opinion of such campaigns if the justification for their conclusions is convincing for me. That is, in each case, I act differently.

Absolutely, the main thing is not posting a project on rating sites, but its potential, social value and product. If a project solves an urgent problem, has an original idea, bears value for the community, and is able to increase the efficiency of a certain branch of the economy, then such a project deserves our attention. Placement on rating sites can simply be bought and do not forget that such sites do not check the legality of the project and its team, so you should not trust them.

Agree, it is common knowledge that there are several rating websites that sell ratings to new projects so that investors are interested in investing. Every investor must see the potential of a project whether profitable or not, because every investor wants his investment to grow

Why not, now if the company is lited on some ico rating websites where various companies are listed and where you can check various information about the company and the rating of the company in various directions, it does not guarantee that the company is not a scam, you just need to study the company by yourself and their the product that they are trying to create, and after all these studies you must decide invest in the company or not.

Real cryptocurrencies were built by many anonymous volunteers... There are also many developers who use their real Identities. It is just their choice. You can't force a good volunteer to appear how he doesn't want to appear. Good anonymous developers could leave if you insist on getting him/her naked.
If a popular coder who is known around the world decides to work for a Crypto project in complete anonymity but gets rejected due his preference for anonymity... you will deny that project of good and qualified developer

No its not important at all. Listing in ICO rating websites is a plus because some investors based on their ratings. But as for me, I don't believe in ICO rating websites, some ICO rating websites ask for extra money just for them to give good ratings. Much better to take your own due diligence in investing rather than looking at this fake ICO rating websites.

A good rating of a website does not mean that a project has the potential to benefit investors. Some time ago there was news about a website rating being investigated by the American Government and I think this is good because sometimes fake good rating from a website can influence someone to invest in a bad project that results in investor losses

For me, it is not important, because I know that projects pay money for placement on these sites and there is no trust in them.

I often use rating sites in order to make an objective review of the project in which I plan to participate, but rating sites cannot be the basis of your choice, this is just a tool to get acquainted with the project. But I agree that the rating can be bought and this can affect you and you will not make the right conclusions about the project.

My reason to invest and participate in ICO project is not depend on ico rating. After i learned so much, i made ico qualification for my own. If my qualification not passed by an ico, whatever their rating in ico rating i won't invest and praticipate. But if my qualification passed by ico, i will participate.

I just use ico rating website for second opinion, not my first way. Nowadays you should not believe what other people say, just learn how to digg more information,  learn business feasibility, and do some fake test, so it would help you so much

I think I might be a bit suspicious if a project is not listed.
The actual ratings in the ICO ratings websites should be treated with a bit of caution, but still, a project should be listed. If it isn't, then that likely means it's very obscure and unlikely to be a wild success.

Rating sites are not a panacea. Everyone knows that there you can easily buy a rating for any project.
I don’t know how things are now, maybe rating sites have become more serious structures, but of all the rating sites that I used, only one showed a stable and high-quality result. This site is icodrops.com
However, I am much more willing to enter a project that is on rating sites than not.

Ico rating websites are off late found of promoting scam projects and hence depending on ico rating scores to participate in a bounty has become hard for me. I rather choose to participate in bounties currently without even checking whether if it is listed on ico rating website or not. I take part in projects even if it is not listed on these ico rating sites.

If the projects are not listed on the ICO ranking sites, I probably never know it. I only care about projects that are highly rated at ranking sites

Most ICO rating websites are paid to do an rated, some are not paid but few can really rate a project
So the ICO rating website is not very important to determine whether I will invest in a project or not

It's 51 to 14 in favor of yes, people don't believe in ICO rating sites anymore because of connivance which still exists today, dubious projects can still find it's way to their top list by paying a fee.

I would participate in such project if I carry out a proper research and I'm convinced the project is worth my investment. Most ico rating website base their judgement on individual level not on standard degree.

Great to hear such since the use of ico rating is getting out of hand and not a single individual is ready to use it since ratings have not been genuine and ico rating websites have been found promoting scam projects which had higher ratings on their websites. Research is the only option left in other to trust and participate in a project.

I believe that the ICO rating on the site may not be true, so when choosing a project, I don't rely on such sites. I always evaluate the project on my own and highlight its pros and cons.

Most of these ICO rating websites can't be trusted, some can collect funds and give whatsoever rating they want so as to attract investors for the project. I have seen some projects which had good ratings or so we thought but ended up failing. I think the main issue is, studying and knowing if the project is worth it or not, and if it does , whether its listed on any ICO rating websites or not participating in it. It is our duty to know the legitimacy of a project not a group of people telling us based on their own opinion (although it might count atimes).

In my opinion at this time most of the ICO rating sites are nothing but some fake promotion. So if the project is good I don't care its in a ICO rating site or not. There is one or 2 sites which is good. I always prefer project with great ideas. But sometimes ICO ratingbsites are useful. And I also use some ICO rating sites cause its easy to find technical status of the project. That's it.

And to note that most of these ICO rating sites are paid ones. So the ratings might be biased in favor of their client, right? I have seen projects with high ratings but I personally know the people managing that project and I can say, they are crap. And from that, I surmise that not all high ranking ico projects are really good.

Never, because if the project is good, it will get the attention of the people, and it will definitely be listed in the ICO ranking websites. There are so many bullshit projects appearing every day so I will never care about them

Yes why not? Rating sites are not a determining factor in the quality of a project, but it is obvious that among all those not on rating sites there will be significantly more scam than among those posted on similar sites.
In view of this, everyone should conduct their own "investigation" of the project and only after they make a decision.

For me it doesn't make a difference on the off chance that it is listed or not as long as I probably am aware the project itself and the team as of now have validity in dealing with the said project. You know there are engineers that are as of now known to deal with effective projects before. Additionally, ICO evaluations isn't so dependable, we as a whole know why and regardless of whether the project is listed, having high appraisals doesn't ensure that the project isn't a scam in any case, in any case, I don't perceive any reason why a decent project would decline to be listed in ICO sites. To start with, that will an or more prevalence and not to deny that there are financial specialists that truly believe inclining to be a major ordeal

I consider that it is a bad thing that they are not listed.
All in all the rating sites try to rate all projects especially promising ones because this is what their traffic is looking for and this is is what makes money for them.

In my opinion I think it is not really a big deal if the project is not listed on ico rating websites because these sites cannot be totally trusted as they are often biased with their ratings.
I have seen projects that were rated low on these ico sites but still did very well. What matters the most is the project itself and your own personal research. If you research the project and found it to be good and legit, then go for it regardless of whether it is on ico rating sites or not.

ICO rating websites can only give me awareness and information about new projects but will never influence my decision to invest in a project or not. So yes, I can invest in a new project if it's not on ICO rating website. The two ICO websites I usually monitor are ICOBENCH and ICODROPS with fair reviews, although most are paid ratings.

The ICO rating site is only as a reference for me to get information about new projects, not as a determinant for participating in the project. A good project can be identified from a professional team and experience. However, good projects are usually in demand by many investors so that the ICO rating site indirectly also reviews the project.

Overtime I have stopped trusting all these projects rating websites or ICO rating websites because in many occasions they have failed to live upto expectations. So, if I see a project and after careful consideration and research proves to be legit and good I would participate whether it is on any rating websites or not. Also, there have been many news that these websites collects money to alter their reports and owing to the outcome of some of projects it has been proven to be true. In my opinion, make your research and invest.

If you think ICO rating websites reflects the correct information, you need the change your mind asap. Most well-known ICO rating websites are paid. For example, Icobench is paid platform. You can create a totally shitcoin and give some money to icobench and they can give you 5 stars. I saw a lot of 5 start project on icobench got scam. For example, there was a project called "BrainSpace" and it was reviewed on icobench as 5 star project. And icobench approved this project got already 30.000.000$. And guess what happened? All the team disappeared instantly; the website closed, telegram channel transformed another project's telegram channel so on.

So what I'm trying to say is do not believe ICO rating websites, do your own research ALWAYS!.

Depending on the details they provide for the Project If its actually good enough and has some efficient team and backing I really dont see why not Most times things like things can even means the project is so confident on its capabilities to attract Just check it thoroughly and then if its green then Is good for me

Yes I will
Most of these rating sites don't base their judgement on anything they're also paid to give their ratings which could be biased or baseless. I do my research if a project is good I join their ICO and invest.

ICO rating website could be your guide ow to know good or not an ICO for investing, the ICO rating website have analyze which one best  ICO for investing and how trust some ICO although not all of ICO rating website have correct, but I will joined based on how trusted an ICO by checking with ICO rating website.

I will consider invest in project even without third party ratings because as most of us know that ratings can be faked and paid. Well if the specific project is clear and feasible according to my judgement and research the definitely I will go for it.

If I see the project will be helpful to the people then I will invest on it even it is not listed on ICO rating websites. ICO rating websites are just shit for me and the ratings there are being paid by the developers of the project themselves. Maybe you can use them as a basis in investing but don't just base there. Do your own research too before investing in the ICO's. Many ICO's are scams and many knows that.

a good project does not have to be listed in the ico website ranking, because what is written on the ico website is not always true, maybe the website only takes data from the ico / ieo project website without finding out more information about the truth of the ico / ieo project because now there are a lot of ico websites that only chase the target of their website visitors and I think the ico website is no more like a newspaper displaying ad pages and if there is an ico / ieo project that wants to pay to the ico website then surely the ico website will enlarge -great news about the ico / ieo project that, so that it can attract investors to join.
And of course the ico web never cares, whether the ico / ieo project is a scam or not in the end.

I will participate but only if the project is legit but, listing in an ICO rating is not a proof or can help to make the project legit, in cryptocurrency investing, you should not buy your reputation that's a big no-no and this is what actually happens to ICO listing, for a good price, you can have a good reputation and a high rating in their platform, and this is corruption.

I will definitely not be involved in such projects. Too dangerous for my money

I would invest in coins on the website if I knew that the coins would be on the market for a long time.

Coins and tokens that are listed on ICO rating websites are mostly scam or shit projects as well but those projects that aren't listed on ICO Rating websites are far worse, they aren't going to get anywhere close to success ever, ICO rating websites do have their share of creating awareness for new projects

The ICO review sites are no longer neutral. There have been reports of them giving out fake reviews in return for a monetary compensation. So I wouldn't give much importance for reviews being dished out by these sites. Even if they are neutral, their reviews have failed many times in the past. Keeping that in mind, I would argue that it is not mandatory for a good project to have reviews given out by sites such as Icobench and Icohotlist. Some of the good projects may get ignored by these review sites and still give good returns upon listing.

That said, the investors should always keep in mind the fact that a good idea may not necessarily mean good returns. The most important part is the conversion of this "idea" in to a full-fledged product. And it is at this stage that most of the ICOs falter. So I would say that in case a project is having a good idea, and the development work is somewhat complete, then you can go ahead and invest in it even though independent third party reviews are not available. But always keep in mind that investing in any ICO comes with a certain amount of risk. 

I don't really care about project not being listed in ICO rating websites. I had situation when project gets the highest mark on ICO rating websites but eventually they turned out to be a totally failure or scam. Rating there are not always true, unfortunately, and it's a well-known fact.

ICO rating websites are no longer doing what they started of initially but are currently doing what suits them to earn more. These ico rating websites are currently seen as a big promoter of scam projects by rating these scam projects with high rating values which aren't true and eventually these projects are failing out there day by day. personally yes, I will participate in a new project if it is not listed on these rating websites due to their fraud nature off late.

I think everyone has their own way before deciding to participate in a project. For me personally, I will look more at the product and the team behind it, the activeness of the team to respond to every question and update about the project they bring to me is more value that makes me start interested and will be more observing about the project. And for ICO rating is not a consideration for me because sometimes they make fake ratings to attract investors as you say.

you have a wrong judgment. ICO rating website are no longer trusted in the community
They do reviews and ratings with some amount of money, the bigger you give the better you receive. we are not in 2017 anymore which they need to review ICO just to get more audience. Now they have the viewers and they reach their goal, they are into money now.

Well, i don't want to participate in any ICO anymore, i might consider investing to a project if they will use IEO on a good exchange like Binance.

I think that there is no need to trust anyone and sites. Only yourself and verified information. It is better to study the project, documents and technical side well than to trust the rating from the site. I'm sure these ratings are easy to buy.

I think this is right as any projects developing team can lure to pay these ico rating websites to promote their projects and attract as much investors as they could and when they gain much from these investors, they decide not to continue with the project again. The introduction of these IEO's will surely help and only with regulation will investors turn back to ico's.

Ico rating websites are not a good bases of finding a good ICOs. The websites are only paying websites which they advertise ICOs. It is now risky to make investment in ICOs due to the scammers so we should be careful in making investment.

I dont think relying on ICO rating site is a big plus point for a projwct. Remember this rating sites have payment in order to showcase the projects. Yes it does help reach people but the problem here is the project might just a gang up project or paid ads alone. If you really like a project you should investigate well this one. To answer the OP, yes I did invest or follow some ICOs not in rating site. My comfort zone on finding new project is the forum. I trust experts here more than ico rating sites.

In my experience, ICO rating does not affect anything even if a project gets a good rate there. Because they only judge in terms of time, I mean, the assessment is done only at that time and not for the future. Many ICOs that I followed through the advice of the ICO rating but the fact that when the coin was launched and entered the exchange, it did not give me an advantage for the purchase of their coins at ICO. In fact, if I Hold the coin, a big loss instead. I'm done with ICOs.

Ico reviews coming from such sites are not liable anymore, most of the time they are just getting paid to promote a project which we cant guarantee to be legit. Its actually better to make a research by yourself and use the site only if we need some basement when choosing a project. But I cant consider to follow everything what they said.

Yeah, That's right. Sometimes we are too consumed with hype, so we ignore the research we have gone through for a project. Personally, I no longer want to do research to see which ICO is good or not, because I have enough with ICO. I only buy top 10 coins according to Coinmarketcap. It the best I can do to keep my money safe.

Some time yes some time not, if I check many investor joined at some IEO or ICO I will join without care how rating trust on website? Its no more important without checking how much their coin sold to the public on pre sale or main sale, looking with their planning is according of road map or not,

While investing in any IEO or ICO, you are actually trusting the team members. You expect them to honor the promises and the commitments they made, and you hope that they will finish the various stages of development work within the timelines that they have specified. If you don't trust these people, then you won't be investing in these projects.

Now it is not very easy to study the hundreds of ICO projects out there and select two or three for investment. Because doing research on them takes a lot of time and effort. And that is where the ICO review sites comes handy. They do the research for you and hand pick a few of the good projects for you. But you need to do some of your own research, before finalizing on a particular project.

It is a wise decision to go for developed coins or those crypto which is already circulating in the market than investing in ICO's. In ICO's there's no guarantee that your money will make a profit since most of the projects are scam. If you invest it in a popular crypto such as ETH or so on, you have the better chance to make a profit out of your investments.

Yes, I think it should be like that. Because what we use in investment is personal money that might one day be used for urgent needs. Like the cost of living, children, electricity, hospitality, or others. So it's better to put it in the right place rather than put it in a place that we don't know yet. Putting money in ICO is like turning the palm of the hand. The ratio is 50:50 between loss and profit.

Recently, I have looked little at rating sites regarding the assessment of the prospects of ICO projects there. I choose the ICO at my discretion. First of all, I’m already looking at what the ICO team will do and whether there is a real product. I look more at practical projects, even if they do not promise high profits from their tokens and have a small pool. In ICO bounty campaigns, I now regard the promise of high earnings as a sign of fraud. In the current state of the altcoin market, big earnings are now impossible.

Agree, web sites evaluate or rank, they are the only people who receive money to do advertising, their honesty is relatively low, even a lot of people reflect on how accurate they are for projects, so if some of the projects aren't listed here, it might be a bad project but it could still be a project that doesn't spend money on advertising. And with the authenticity and research on this issue, we will know where is the project with potential, even if it is not listed, investing in it is still good, trust on one side will be wrong

Usually, those rating websites do not ask you any money to list your project on their site, but some of them will ask you money if you want to be rated as a good ICO on their website. Just like what happened with ICOBench so many times before. On the other hand, if any ICOs do not get listed on those rating websites.
it explains the project lacks popularity and the probability for the ICO to fail is high. Then it is not a good thing participating in this kind of project, because it is worse than choosing any ICO that is listed and get rated high on those exchanges.

Yes, sure, if the project looks legitimate and promising I would participate or even invest in the project, even if it is not listed in ICO rating websites. In fact, most of these websites are paid from the devs and their ranking isn't really trustworthy. I use to do my own research about the project before taking the decision of participating or investing.

as bounty participants / investors must have their own research and not just trust a site because it can be detrimental. as you said that some projects pay to get a good rating but experienced people will usually not easily believe the research and rating results of a site

These rating sites mean nothing. The rating there will be such for which they will pay. Therefore, take similar information. for the criterion for investing, I would not. I myself am looking for coins in which I invest my money. The other day I found a new YUSRA GLOBAL coin (https://yusra.global) with a POS-mine. Now mining has just started and you can earn up to 30% per month. Really cool profit!

I joined many bounty campaign and always check how trusting the ICO on rating website, have reached good rating ICO or not before join and doing the bounty campaign task, rating website give me other information for an ICO to know good or not about their product and how many respond from investors.

Of course project listing is not neutral, not these days anymore. Back in the old days projects were listed because they were popular and exchanges recognize that they were gaining traction.

Now it is all about bounties and fees. Exchanges are the ultimate bounty hunters now, even bigger than ICO rating websites!

A listing on ICO rating website, does not guarantee any success. On the contrary, usually the best rated projects are very likely to fail after the token sales. Sharpay ICO was the most rated ICO on ICOBench in their history with over 50 ratings of 4,9 stars. Right now, this coin is dead :)

If project is good and they have strong and experienced team why not, but so far I didn't see new project which has not been listed there. ICO rating sites and their ratings are only opinions by people who think they are experts and many times money talks. Investor should use ICO rating sites to find new projects, not to use it as investment guidelines.

gone were the days that ICO rating websites were found of doing great and amazing but not this current crypto world where these rating websites receive money before they do their work giving out poor rating values to deceive investors and traders. For me, I will definitely participate in a new project if not listed on any ico rating website.

I think everyone has their own way of choosing a project before participating in it, some people make the ICO rating a good or bad consideration for the ICO project, but it is true that you say sometimes there is a fake ICO rating. For me personally, this can sometimes be taken into consideration but I also make observations on the project that was brought and the team behind it to make decisions later.

It is common knowledge that rating websites receive payment for good ratings. A new project that is not on the website rating does not mean that the project is bad, maybe because of a small marketing budget that cannot pay the website rating. Many factors of a project are feasible as an investment tool and in my opinion cannot be assessed simply because they are not listed on the website's rating

Yes, and ico rating in websites does not guarantee the success of an ico. Most of them are still failing and being a scam project in the end.
The legitimacy of the project is still in the hands of its developers, ico ratings are just being paid to advertise the new launch project.
We should not use it as a basement to choose a project whether it is legit or not.

Well i would be participate in the new project if the project was trusted and have some good future on it.
As of now ill think it was only few of projects are totally trusted to participate, Because in this year their are to many scam project and the platform are all the same if we look at it.

Not all of those websites deserve your trust, for example the most promoted projects on ICOBench are very likely to fail to meet their soft cap. On the other hand, the most reviews from ICOdrops seem very informative and help to understand the project better. Only my opinion  :D

Of course, have participated in a lot of ICOs that are not listed on any ico rating site, meanwhile most of the ico rating sites are not to be trusted, i usually do my due diligence before I invest in any project I can't even trust those sites anyway.

I have never followed ICO rating websites yet before joining in a bounty campaign. Every ICO rating website are fake they don't use google ad or ay other ads so how they able to make money? They take money from ico project owner to give high rating on their project.

Yeah, I think it's important for the ICO project should be listed on ICO rating websites.
The concept is simple, if the Project got a high score, then many investors will try to invest in it.

Over time, we can do our own analysis for some project (ICO). I will be good on future or not. If some project listed in famous ico rating website can be a good value but for ensuring the future of that project absolutely not. And how about your perspective. Did you really care about project vision and mission? or just taking opportunities for profit. 😊

As if investing in an ICO with multiple reviews is not risky enough.  ;D

For the past 1-2 years, I am staying away from the ICOs. The reason is that no matter whatever precautions we take, it is not possible to separate the scam ICOs from the good ones. The scammers have got very innovative now. They are spending a lot of money in building websites, social media channels and white papers. Even if you spend a lot of time in studying the project, the chances are that you will not get any hint to prove that it is a scam project. And if independent third party reviews are not available for the project, then the task becomes even more difficult.

You need to think about it again. Do not rely on ICOrating sites to find out whether the project is good or bad. It is good for information about projects and a safe transition to the site, but their reviews about projects are not real. I even saw that they gave 8 stars to scam project. After someone mocked them, the coin was removed from the list.

Only if i can be sure it is good project, or the project is IEO, i think i can participate.

Those days are over now when people invested by seeing high ratings from the Icobench, Icodrop or other ICO rating websites! No one cares about ICO rating anymore. Because Ico ratings all are a lie, the even gave high rating to the scam projects. Icobench gave very negative ratings to the Tokoin and SERO project but they gave one of the highest ROI of the year when Icobench gave 4 ratings to the Neluns, who are claimed 112 million USD in the bear market!

Just do your vigilance, research as much as you can! Verify a project's whitepaper, products, most important partners, media news and community activities! If a project passed these circumstances, you may invest there. Use icobench or other ico rating websites only to find the latest project information.

Yes indeed, we cannot be fooled by such developers anymore. besides that, I have saved several coins as portfolios including ETH, XLM, ADA, and XRP. Bitcoin too of course. I don't want ICO and IEO either, I will never follow it again. it's better to put money in a clear place.

I guess that is a smart decision after all the hullabaloo in ICOs and IEOs. You can't really trust people in cyberspace. You will find that only few people have their genuine intentions. And most of these projects listed in ICO rating websites are paid. So how can you trust a paid service?

I would if.. the hype of the project is high. The telegram group has high participant and all of them are active. Also if the team members are experienced so they don't have to pay ICO rating websites to list them because they're famous enough to advertise theirself.

Such ICOs today are beyond credible and this is probably a scam! These are fake and they only provide fake ratings to get people to invest in their ICO. It is now unbelievable so we better know what a legit ICO is and let's not rely on such fake websites.

If the project that conducting and ICO was legitimate then why not? At first when i use to invest in some ICO's before in 2018 precisely! I'm not consider to look on any ICO rating site, Since those ICO rating sites are just after the money thats why its not reliable at all. I was remember when one of the project that i was invested turn into a scam despite the truth that it has earned a good rating on the most ICO listing site how ironic!

I would not recommend participating on project that is listed on ICO websites since some of them are scam and promoting just to make money and those are paid listing.

And it would be much better to check and analyze it by yourself and if its legit. Some of the whitepaper, technical paper, overview and token/coin code are just a copy-cat from another project and also creating a fake linkedIn account for the team.

yes why not ? if i sense that they are legit i wont hesitate to jump imediately before its too late and start regretting at the end  .  ico rating websites are not the basis of the success or the failure of the ico and also there are lots of them so not all will list every project  . other have a requirements before listing  .but whats obvious is that every ico project will always have thier own ann thread on this forum , if not then they are considered shady and i wont trust them

We don't need to depend in rating reviews site because not all reviews is fair much better to make your own review and research. Maybe ratings of review site is helpful but not all will give exact details about the project. There's some project is good and not listed in review site but look at them they growing and proving their project/product is good, we as a community will be decide in the end.

if i find a good project then i will definitely join it because a good project will give a big profit.. the ICO web rating does indeed influence the judgment to determine whether a project is good or not, and even if the project that I see is good is not listed on the ICO rate website then I will still join it .. because the ICO rating website cannot guarantee the success of a project will be successful or not..

Yes off course. To start with ICO rating website prediction and rating of ICO project are now reliable and influential to the success of crypto project.  Reason because most Ico rating site collect funds from project to give them high rating not minding if the project its top notch or not. So the judgment of the present Ico rating sites are not to be taken seriously when investing in an IEO or ICO.  Ad an investor take out time to research on your own and see if the ICO or IEO meets your standards and requirement before investing in it.

I will not participate in the ICO project that is not listed on the ICO rating website, because it is prone to fraud, the ICO project listed in the Web ICO rating can at least be accessed by us and can be traced to their data, such as developers and Team working on the project. In addition those listed on the ICO website rating is at least a project that is already ripe and ready, so that they have already submitted their project proposals to be registered on the ICO rating website.

The good thing with ico rating is to have the exposures from investors who loves reviewing the project, those who are not listed to any kind of rating website have a lesser chance being noticed by many investors around. It's a good idea to any developers to enroll and participate to extend their popularities and have more people to influence and potential investors to join the project.

For me new projects that are not listed on the website wabsite are very doubtful because the wabsite in a bounty is very influential, many new projects appear that we do not know well and don't, I will see who has a clear vision, especially rating and further information of a project if it is clear means I will participate in it

I think a good project needs to be exposed and more people pay attention to it in order to have a chance of success. If the website does not list this project, I will not participate.

in my opinion is not all the best projects are listed on the ICO rate website ... because what you say is that the founders of ICO can pay the website for a high rating to attract the attention of cryptocurency enthusiasts to invest in their projects ... so I don't trust the website rate to make it as a success factor or not a project that is being launched

If I'll find good project then of course i wanna participate IEO & bounty. There are many good projects that do not think about all these rating sites and I agree with their plan. At this time, investors are more cautious about themselves, so it will not be possible to stretch the IEO / ICO rating site.

yup, most of them are paid expert user on that website to make fake rating about thier project to increase the star, for example look at KryptoRedeem project that launch their ICO and getting about 4 / 5 rating on ICObench (https://icobench.com/ico/kryptoredeem) but look at them now, the project website cant be access and admin on telegram has been inactive about month , the project is totally dead right now.

so we cant really trust ICO project that having big rating on ICO rating  website like this, we need to do our own research about the project like who's the people behind the project & how the project work.

Never waste my time and money on projects like that. I only care and invest in new projects if they implement IEO in big exchanges like MXC, Gate, Hoo.com, Binance ...

If I am convinced with the idea of the project and do see that it will have a good future based on my understating and the interactions with the team then I would like to invest in that projects. Not necessary would be depended on the ICO rating for that, but it just acts as a guide or say one of the parameters.

As your survey speaks, checking the project's rating on ICO rating website is one of the criteria or point in the checklist to judge the project. However, this is not mandatory to have the information and rating about the project on that rating website. Even though we see that some good rating projects also not doing well or turned out to be a scam, we can not trust that information. Based on our own research, MVP, team contacts, product development, and the concept should be part of our judgment of that project.