Bitcoin Forum

Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!

What do you think?

"All rating platforms are shit" it is not true always. Sometimes rated coins have showed their values. Sometimes they don't perform as it should be. One should not follow the rating only. Other associated considerations should be taken before investing.

I don't think all rating platform are shit. But I can some of them are actually helping scammer for money. Recently one ICO failed and the ICO team didn't refund the funds. Before ICO failed, the rating was 4.8/5(Highly recommended ICO), and after failing the ICO they immediately change the rating as 2/5(not recommended ICO). We need some irreversible blockchain powered platform to count the rating. Otherwise, some of them are going spread scams.

Are you being deceived by the platform? To be honest ICO I do not want to participate. Because I do not think the rating company is transparent, I do not choose to participate in ICO.

I use only icobench. But I clearly realize that they can only evaluate the profile, the team and the relevance of the product. By and large this is a mechanical evaluation, reinforced with general information, which can be complete nonsense.
One must understand that any words of experts can not serve as a call to action. Personally, I noticed that ICO with rating 3 to 4 show a better result than with 4,5+

Ratings platforms are just doing their jobs for commenting on an ICO with their whitepaper and what they see in a project. If the project to meet the need as has been publish in their whitepaper, I don't think the rating platform should be blame.

Some platforms are real, but there is more or less a relationship between the rating platform and the project team!
 ;D

The rating platforms do not perform due diligence, they merely give a rating of the ICO based on the information provided by the company. Sometimes that is rating by a bunch of so called experts and other times it is just based on votes by investors. Before you invest your money you should thoroughly go over the information about the project and try to confirm that information from reputable third party sources.

Ratings do not guarantee good luck. The mechanism that will give a guarantee to come up with probably vryatli it turns out. But still a landmark is needed and better than the ratings so far there is nothing.

Do you mean the ICO rating? Well I think that's not all true, some ICO rating is even very good in their riview and also there are some of them who just want to profit from every ICO, with just a bit of ethereum or Bitcoin they change the rating from ICO with business purpose albeit with a bit of a fool

it is interesting that you only see "deception" because price has gone down! and you were closing your eyes on the same "deception" that also existed while price was going up.
it is a simply process pump AND dump.


i don't really understand how this relates to rating platforms but as for mechanism, i don't see any need for it. the "honest projects" will survive and as long as they are actually doing something and not just advertising it, they will grow more even if in short term they get pumped and dumped.

Most of the rating platforms do have a lot of false information. I think they are charging for the interests of some project parties! But there are still many good platforms, at least they make it easier to record bets!

many of them are paid service and can't use their rating to invest into an ico.
such as https://www.coinschedule.com/ almost icos have similar rating event scam one as you can check in past ico also have 3 stars

Yes, I totally agree with you, rating platforms are really a shit. I have long been convinced of this. You never have to rely on such rating sites. You need to do the project analysis yourself and trust yourself only!

indeed many projects now look good only with rating only, but not as we imagine many of them are deceiving and when there is a market about the tokens they make.

Almost all are shit. There are actually some raters who work dilligently to get that data but finding the true rater is a pain in the arse. That's why I prefer to do my own research instead of trusting a ranker. It shall come as no surprise to know that I mostly disagree with most raters.

If you want to become an investor, you should forget about most of the ratings, because they also can't predict  with high accuracy project's profitabilty.

I really agree with you, too many scams everywhere and I also think we need some mechanisms to protect honest projects, but I think it's not easy to implement this, because I'm sure there are many new and growing fraud models currently.

I think you are a smart person. Rating agencies must also survive. As long as there is a demand for survival, there are natural industry rules. So I do not believe in rating agencies either. I think the risk of ICO is here. Real rating agencies are hard to survive.

I always say in such cases that the only useful rating is something like TOP7 ICO table https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12bJmLfCf02VIrBg4DPrTeR_hqGE6V5dorgMglPUOwSA/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0 So-called "voice of crowd bloggers/influencers "still works well. You can not trust one site/man, you can not trust even 2-3 of them, but if most of them say that NEX and Quarkchain are top projects this could be the truth with very high chances.

Investors are unlikely to react to the ratings, they first look at the information about the project, after which they just start to throw in money!

It's true that most review sites are disgusting.
Because most ratings are unreliable, I don't believe in any ratings. I only believe in myself.

First of all, we can't trust rating sites because they are interested in traffic and money. Often ICO projects pay money for reviews and ratings, so later or earlier even the honest analytic can lie and give ICO the top mark.

You can trust only yourself when the deal is about money.

The rating platform can't be generalized. I think a good project must be judged by itself. To verify the authenticity of the project. Don't rely on the so-called rating platform. Many of the rating platforms are not too transparent. If you want to invest in a ICO project, please be careful.

Rating platforms cannot really determine the outcome of a certain project. So if you are investor, do not rely on ratings instead you do your own research and see whether that project is worthy of your investment.

I have also obsered this but did not know how to put it.  I have see project been rated high by some reputable rating sites and it turn out to be a scam. I have also noticed some very powerful campaigns on this forum and at the end investors are regretting.  I agree with you that good project need to be protected and this can really happened by some kind of regulations.

Claiming something is shit without providing any concrete evidences to back your claim is the real shit. Im not really against or with connection to any platform, but please do provide informations that can support your claims.

When you will have working rating mechanisms that will mean that all the market is divided all profits concluded and all peaces of pie are on their legit plates. Remember about that when you are demanding "fair and working ratings". 

We needs an independent organization or association to conduct ratings on different projects not those that were paid for just to make some good ratings in a specific project even though it is a low profile project or just to make it looks good in the eye of the investors. It would be nice if we will not trust this kind of rating system that will just make some kind of deception and confusion to each and everyone of us.

Yes they are! Thanks for finally understanding that. They are just like bounty hunters, you give them money and they advertise you as getting you listed higher.


What we need is exactly this. An independent organization that will get paid for doing honest research. Maybe some of you around here could pull it off as an ICO...  ;D

Funny isn't it, the only way to save ICO market is to start another project  ;D

Agree, there should be some type of platform/body that supports the honest projects. Too many people are scared to invest in a new project because of major scams. Rating platforms is just a business, you pay them, they do a review and i'm sure for a little extra they say something nice

Yes, I agree with you, I think only decent projects will be able to protect themselves, but here it is necessary to prevent any lobby under any circumstances!

They are not shit. They just rate. It is the same thing as we all speculate that the market will recover one day and so if doesn't happen sooner, you can't be held responsible. Also rating platforms are not financial advisors, they just check certain features and use it to rate that particular ICO

Many people come to this conclusion after they trust their choice of project for investment, but if you think about it, it's really so, because today there are a lot of projects that can buy the opinion of this service.

Yes they are not very great in what they are doing today. As most of them are just paid reviews and everyone knows that when there is paid stuff then it is mostly fake one. If every ICO starts getting paid reviews then obviously whats the use of that. All of them will get the same reviews and almost above 4 star ratings.

If all the ICO come with that attitude then how can one trust on single of them. They dont guarantee us any legit reviews but just attract in paid ways. Mostly I see them as paid advertising. As you go on the website and check that XYZ ICO is having + reviews and thus we may fall for it and it could be scam too. Better watch them out.

I honestly do not like rating sites and for whatever reason I do not trust them. this reminds me of one of the projects that get high ratings in some rating sites, he is a Hash Card. But ultimately Hash Card scam and many people who suffered losses because of it. So a high rating does not guarantee that the project is feasible and promising.

Yes, Measure, analyze, compare their common standards to evaluate what is ico? or even for cmc. They also brought to the community deception before. I do not trust them when choosing ico to invest. and most of my use of thought and reason and measures to check and authentic.

Most rating platforms should not be taken into consideration when investing, I know many of the projects have been called scam but they are not scam and vice versa.

I think that they, like corrupt media, pay more, get a good rating! There were already many cases when a project with a good rating turned out to be a scam! They mislead investors!

I dont follow any ratings because  most of the ico ratings its not actual rating . Ratings not work if the project demand was high and the company was good then any ico gaining its the real fact.

All rating sites are not shits. and all ICO ratings are not accurate as always. I have seen few scams were in top notch of rating sites (denaro).  If an ico program can spent enough money, they can get highest rating. Thats the fact behind rating sites. I use ratings as one of main factor while researching about icos. But not a "must be" factor.

I don't think all rating platforms are shit. After all, no one can foretell how successful a project or an ICO may become, even the investors. ICO's success depends on a lot of factors especially once it enters the market, however, investors and experts' views may also be limited to some technical analysis and readings. In any case, I still trust some of the rating platforms such as ICOrating, not because of their ratings or anything but because of the details provided especially in terms of the amount raised by a project. Although, you can just do your own research and compare it to some reviews in different rating platforms to widen your views and garner other's opinion about a project.

I feel your pain man. Many of those rating sites are nonsense. Imagine a project my buddy was doing it's bounty turned out to be a scam after he had earlier seen the ratings for the project to be high on a popular rating site. After the project turned out to be a scam, he went back n saw the rating has been reduced.

What should investor do with such service?

I think they are doing their duty. But sometimes they are not providing the actual rating. It decreases their popularity. That’s why some peoples are says they are shit.

It is better to make a comparison between all the rating platform. Nowadays there are a lots of reviewers, websites and indicators who can help to know of a project is interesting or not to invest.

And who told you that they show an objective point of view??? No, these sites work and earn on traffic, on advertising on their site. They don't care what idea carries a particular post on the site. For them, it's just content that needs to be replenished daily on the site. A ratings cheating do bots

I agree with your statement.
I assume that not all ratings are dirty. there is an honest rating. so check carefully. there are some coins that use it a lot to show their honesty. those who use coins many of them choose coins that many devotees. it's the highest score.

that is the reason to do research for yourself. do not just jump into conclusion base on what you read on listing platform. some top ICO listing perform do not list for free. they are being partronize by ICO company to list their ICO on their site. there are agreement which both party will need to fulfil and that is the reason why you see favourism in ico listing sites. forget about rating, they are being bought. if I want to get high review plus good rating on my ICO i will pay listing site good sum of money to get it done.

I think rating is a first impression for us when first look at the project. Because of the high rating of the average project has a high criteria. The judge of a project is usually the leading experts, so they certainly know how worthy the project they are worth.

I think you are right in many respects, By the fact that most rating agencies want to earn themselves extra money and are therefore ready to do not quite objective assessments.

I fully support the author's opinion. It seems to me that a controlling structure will be made soon. Because there's too much cheating around the ICO. I think someone should definitely do it. This will make life easier for investors and bounty-hunters.

Friends, are you a victim? Your language is sharp. I very much agree. I think the rating platform is not transparent. They may have insider trading. So I don't want to believe it.

Yes, there is some truth in your words. Thanks for the link.

I'm looking at the ratings. Of course, the rating doesn't say that in a month you will get a lot of money. In the rating, you see the analysis of the project and the potential. I have not seen successful projects with a rating of 2/10. The rating doesn't predict the price on the market, so with the help of the rating, you cannot predict the future.
In the code can find and not fix the vulnerability, the project can be attacked by hackers, perhaps someone from the team will be a fraud. Rating is an analysis, sometimes erroneous and not deep, but it is not 100% indicator of ToTheMoon.

There is a complete lack of a reliable set of criteria for the evaluation of new platforms. You should choose your own criteria to rate the project, completeness, accessibility of information.

The most of platforms have paid reviews. I know one only website with the ratings which I think are correct. It's icodrops. I don't trust all other. Because of I see many times wrong or inflated rating. And I read about "experts" from this platform as paid human

These ICO ratings are useful as a guide but should be taken as gospel. It is like a quick overview instead of going through the whitepaper, but of course if it does spark an interest then study the whitepaper in full prior to investing.

why do u depend on rating platform do your own research about the project and the team behind it.. usually  icos pay to platforms to drop them in good rating.. there was an ico some months ago by the name of clout platform their concept was to do the independent evaluation of the ico .. check them out if they are still doing the evaluation of the projects and its team

Probably so, almost every rating platform was noticed in its incompetence, which means that all of them also love money and do not refuse them when they are offered a bribe for high appraisal. Therefore, I think it is foolish to blindly believe only rating platforms, include your own analysis and this will give you more understanding about the project in which you want to invest.

its always better to do your own research, and don't forget that things could change from day to day. just like the market

If you do not trust these sites (platforms) simply dont use it. Do research on your own, if you know how to do it ;)

Understand this can not be, nobody can know the project will be successful or not, if everyone knew that the project was successful, then you just would have invested money and earn easy money, this is not so!

I recently read an article about the exposure of the site-rating icobench. The truth is in it and I do not trust these sites, because you can buy anything for money.

I agree, therefore, ideally, legislation is needed that will regulate the activities of the ICOs. The law will significantly reduce the number of scammers and restore investor confidence in projects, I think that this is the only way to get rid of fraudulent projects.

Rating platforms always publish of any project and many of these projects don't reach softcap funds. I think they are a mechanism to give strength and credibility to projects, however they include SCAM projects and many don't reach their objectives. To know if a project is good, it's not worth just to see the rating, you have to study it completely.

on what grounds do rating platforms give estimates? they are just like ordinary people just based on their opinion give estimate, do not trust them

Actually that seems to be true. I use only one platform that I can rely on... Don't need any more.

How come alsomst all ICOs are receiving 5/5 on track ICO and other platforms. I think these ratting are paid rattings and bullshit. Just do your own research before investing.

Not all, but most of them. These ratings are bought and sold, so choose projects for investment yourself. Only Icodrops can be trusted.

The element of truth definitely in it is. I often think of it. A certain highest force which will be able to punish for deception is necessary, then rating agencies won't be necessary, we will just know if the project appeared he precisely wants to develop, has read his idea has like and has begun to participate in him, it wasn't pleasant - has forgotten. But you it is definitely not deceived here that is necessary.

I understand what you are saying, and although that could help it wouldn't necessarily solve anything. Even if those platforms where impartial (meaning they wouldn't favor projects that paid them, or gave them any other incentives) it would be impossible for them to review all projects and give a fair opportunity to all.

I really think that us (retail investors) just need to get better at evaluating the projects we want to support. Most people want an easy way, and those platforms would do just that. People would go to those platforms, select the top 5 projects and invest on them, or something like that. This would leave a lot of potential good projects out of business, just because they weren't there, and it would give to much power to those platforms.

rating platform does not make a reference to a major project. they are also a double community that may be also paid to assessing a project so what they do is not entirely the pure reference to others. make it as consideration only, to address the issue of scam or a nice project and not just its own analysis then as much as possible.

Not all but very many. I take into account the opinion of icodrops on the projects I analyze. But I always make the final decision myself.

Haha yup, like ICO, there are currently too many website ICO rating. I find that most of the ICOs listed on those sites are highly rated, but when one of them scam, they just said sorry  :D :D

I wouldn't say that rating platforms are shit you just cannot trust them. Well, if you think about it, if they cannot be trusted then they might be shits? LOL
Anyway, you cannot trust the ratings in any rating platform because there are many cases of ICOs that has high ratings but ends  up to be a scam project. To think that the ratings were made by some "experts".

I don't think such association will be formed, in the near future at least. ICOs are not being regulated so an association cannot give certifications regarding the reputation of a project.

I don't think that all rating platforms are shit. Icobench seems to be good and informative.
As a first step of my research I am using ICO rating sites only. But I never trusted them. You don't know if they were manipulated.

awarding of rating would not be the deciding factor will be the success of ICO. but at least this can be one of the considerations for determining its own little choice. scam and there will certainly be difficult to distinguish in because even they would rate even though in a bad value. But what they point out is also not fully correct.

yes, I almost agree. some projects become very useless and do not even have great growth opportunities. there are many ico who are just chasing profit and looking for fast money. maybe we should seriously discuss this issue, more so on the regulations that can mediate the ico problem as we discussed.

Even a month or two ago I was believing in ICO rating platforms.
But someone opened my eyes when I was suggesting rating platforms to someone who created a thread to ask.
Second incident was, I complained about a scam project to a rating platform once and they did nothing.

Since then, I mean after those 2 incidents I am much careful about rating platforms and I actually don't believe in them... They are just paid promoters and the ratings are manipulated.

Then rate it yourself. Look deeper into one project and see thru how they are committed with their project.

It is not bad to ask. As of now, almost every ICO have a telegram group where you could ask anything about the project. They like it more to have some questions like that so that they can clear some questions which investors cannot ask.
Look at how they answer and rate it as how much your instinct tells it.

not true, there are good rating sites but some of it are paid sites. Some of it are giving false ratings and some people might bite the project because of it. Sometimes this trash ratings sites lead them to scams.

We can not rate all rating platforms as shit but some i read that they raise the grade with invalid votes, the goal may be to mislead the investor. When participating in an ICO, it would be a huge mistake for the investor only to base itself on the ICO rating.

We need DAICO or another platform where inventors must register their docs or something for help searching them. This protection against scammers will make investors lives easier. :)

Sorry I cant agree with you that all ratting platforms are shit. Some of them might be bad but not all of them.For your doubtness I recommend you to analyze all the project by yourself

The majority of them are shit and i will never repeat it again, i agree with OP basically the majority of them are getting paid by manipulating the rate of ico itself. More than 90% of ico site.
To do any research has become the investor's responsibility but it looks so shady to see even there is an ico rating site that listed scam ico.

I know that many such platforms really uncompromisingly evaluate campaigns and ICO and this big problem for crypt because it is very difficult to trust something..because of scam and fake. I hope we will find some ways to cope with it.

I don't trust all the rating platform because I believed that "experts" just paid for rating, I saw that high rating project also don't have people invest, but low rating project raised more than 10M $$$, they also don't do any action after report to them about scam ICO project, so I just trust my eyes and do my own research to find out potential ICO project

hahaha i hate to say it but i agree with it. most ico rating is fake and not independent, i prefer to learn it by myself

Rating agencies today are really very often wrong, and from this it can be concluded that they do not exactly make the correct forecast, because now there are already many projects, about which they wrote and appropriated good grades, as a result, they turned out to be a scam.

I've heard about one particular project when the wife was an expert on the rating site and the husband was a leader of project and they would rate it.

I do not think so, all rating platforms are shit. Some are doing a great job and giving appropriate information. On the other hand some platforms provide a false or fake information related to campaigns and ICO and this is a big problem for crypto because it is very difficult to trust something who is fake or who is real.

of course the scammer makes the crypto industry become negative. and it is very difficult to detect any cheats that are in the name of an ico. as for ico is successful but very no good chance and grow. even tend to walk on the spot, there are many altcoin that fall more than 90% of ico price. this is very regrettable, and make ico reputation even more negative

Although there are lot of review sites that are coming up, but except icobench, I don't think any other is reliable enough.
The funny part is that the same ICO is given a rating of 3 on one platform and 4.4-4.7 on the other review platform. Any investor who goes by the rating of a scam ico on a scam review website is in for a lot of trouble since he would be losing his hard earned money to some scam ICO.
I don't trust any other website except icobench and I feel others shouldn't trust too.

I also think there is dishonesty here. Many expert votes are being purchased for the purpose of enhancing the virtual value of an ICO project.  :( >:( >:(

the rating which provides platform does not guarantee the success of the ICO. better analyze yourself and are confident with the choice of owning on trust in rating. they value are also not entirely true because many have the good rating but did not succeed in earning. It's a lot going on and of course rating, I think to begin to have no function.

This is what I was thinking, I don't think they are trusted and reliable. It's not a secret anymore that they can manipulate or list a bad ICO into their site. The solution is "do your own research" The first step is to check the team and their advisors, are they real or not, then keep in touch with them. Next, check if the project has a competitor or not, or is there something similar to the project? and the last analyze future prospects of a project.

in fact they are either independently, but the facts prove their analysis also can not speak much when many projects become unsuccessful and even scam. They are no different from the advertising sites and are not very accurate in assessing the project. they do not seem to be a professional platform and just pursue traffic only. I'm not a critic to go back to personal analysis, but there is great hope for them to become more reliable in the future and keep improving common mistakes.

I think that rating platforms are doing very good jobs as they are providing comment about ICO with their related paper like whitepaper and their expectation in a project. They are commenting based on the paper of the coin so they should not be blamed for any discrepancies by the coin. Moreover there are both good and fake platforms. We should be aware of that.

I agree to it, all rating websites and others are more like paid media these days. You cannot trust any of those as they are getting paid to write a project profiting posts.
Personally, investors should mature more and start doing research, read whitepaper, check out the Team and advisor. etc.

I think the rating platform can only be used as one of the reference projects. We can't blindly invest in a project by relying solely on rating. We need to analyze from more aspects!

In my opinion, one shouldn't trust rating websites as criteria to pick icos. You need to do your in depth research to be able to decipher what is good and what is not good though their are no guarantees. I personally like icodrops as they are very professional and gives accurate results up to the tune of 90%.

Dude, your statements are contradicting with each other.

Anyway, I agree with the first statement that one shouldn't rely in ICO ratings. They should only be used as a guide in conducting a resesrch a projects so that you can get another point of view of the project in a different perspective.

They can only get the information and appreciate the 70%. The remaining 30% is still a risk if we invest. Previously I have explored a lot of ICO projects on the ICO rating websites. But not all project highly appreciated are successful

Quite right. Rating platforms are designed to make money, and therefore you will not find objectivity here.

Rating platforms deliberately increase the evaluation of the project for a surcharge. And lower ratings if you paid less

Rating platforms exist so that you understand the average evaluation of the project compared to the others, but this estimate does not need to be taken as a 100% guarantee. Once you have found a good project for investment and looked at its assessment, you need to evaluate many more side factors that can tell a lot. Therefore, blaming rating platforms is not entirely correct.

Maybe you are upset for some reasons. But, It is not the Icoratings website I think, Because They rated ICO Projects by seeing their team activity, future goal, vision and they verified KYC From the project owner. But at the end of the day, no one knows what's going on in his mind. Some scammers had a good reputation, but after millions of USD Raised, They scammed People. Just think about Hashcard and worldex, Both are managing the good teams, both had an excellent rating before, both were promising, but after 4-5 Millions, USD Raised they scammed people!

So, All rating platforms are not shit. It's about bad people. So, don't go for every project by seeing their excellent rating. Do more research as much as you can. Myself, I like Icobench, Icotracker and con schedule.

Well, they are surely not shit in one thing - collecting all of the current ICO on one platform, and gathering the most important information about it (such as dates, soft/hard caps, etc.) But I hardly ever take their raitings seriously, and the same applies to any other sources, like youtubers or telegram channels.

I do not believe in ratings, it is better to study the project without third-party evaluations. But for me ratings are, above all, a handy tool with a lot of projects.

Yes that's right.
The market is tired of the scum. It's hard to tell a good project from shit. But I'm sure the market will sooner or later find a way to defeat the Bacchanalia, which is now more and more.
Personally, I look at the rating platforms and watch the terms, brief information and skim through the links.

I will not say that they are shit as they provide useful information about the ICO's and i get alot of help from them....yes they cannot be purely accurate but still they can give you some idea about the ICO which is very important..yes but we must nou blindly trust them

in any case, their activities bring some positive points to our work. of course, before you trust any project, you must check it and thus protect yourself from the risk of being deceived.

You have to do your own research. Ratings are great, but you never know who is writing them and that's never enough to base an investment off of. Use ratings, reviews, forums, whitepapers, and follow trends by consistent monitoring to make the best investments you can make.

Not all rating platforms are bad, some are credible. Many platform rankings are paid for by the project developers to rank highly. This is very detrimental to investors, I hope you are careful in investing your money.

It is not all the ratings that are shit. The problem lies in the fact that the people doing the ratings do it out of the facts and information they lay hold upon about the project which may not turn out to be true. They can't see the future remember, they are only speculating based on the facts they have at hand and things can go south some of the times.

By providing just their comments/hunch about an ICO project based on whatever was scribbled on the whitepaper, they are everything but rating sites. A credible rating site unearth facts and that often include interviewing those behind a project, their identities and contacts, then trust can come in. Other than that you're better off without them except one admits to be too lazy to lift a finger.

Btw no serious investor is ever going to put their money on any project based on the recommendations of some online reviewers, without any name or history.

I think it's not fair if you just blame the rating platform, to be honest the mistake is in every investor itself, because it wants instant things and want quickly gets a high profit. The rating platform only gives their opinion about an ico they reviewed, but their review is not an indicator that the ico that gets a good rating is a promising ico.

Sometimes shit sometimes not. Maybe not all though, some rating platforms are for profit and if you would join ICO’s official telegram channel they will ask you to vote their project. It seems that they will have to beg people to vote their project. One factor that makes it good also is investors depend on it as the basis of their investment. They think the higher the rating the more reliable the project is.

I have noticed on many occasions that on rating platforms unjustifiably high marks were given to frankly bad projects. Apparently they get a good "reward" for manipulating the rating, otherwise it's not clear why they do it.
I'm no longer guided by the rating platform in choice of ICO.

I'd say most of them are, probably. Icodrops are legit. They do diligent research and pretty transparent. Not sure about others.

I think you are a very smart person. Our ideas are basically the same. I also do not believe in the rating platform. I think there are benefits here. So it is a scam.

The ico rating platforms are all scams. Their rating does not depend on considerable judgment. Instead, they collect more money to give you a better rating. Even if it is a shit, it is only willing to pay for those rating platforms. Can also get a high rating.

I'm literally agree with you, but not all rating platforms are shit. There are some professional and have real reviewer.
Yes, there are a shit rating platform which always reviewing some project with fake review. They only want the money, so if the project owner agree to pay amount as platform said, they will give good rating. And this is very risk for all investors.

They are not shit but they are bought one! Everyone loves money and in what sense you think that ICO rating platforms are running? Do you think they are having fun rating the other projects?  I dont think that at all and what I believe is, ICO companies provide lot of money to them so that they can give them higher reviews and may be this is non ending. Not only this, now a days ICO rating sites have also turned into bounty portals so that they can have double benefits. They will rate it themselves and will give participation by all themselves only.

Well, it is true that there are many fake information in the market but all the rating platform is not shit. There are many examples that they showed their value as they told. But I agree with you that more upgraded mechanism is needed.

All rating platform for an ico permonce is was right and many ico was success based on rating platform, rating paltform will be make many ivestor intersested to invest and buy ico token because there are on platform rating more positive respond form another investors. This key for ico success and sold out their token, just small chance ico will be broken because the fault of their owner was run away investor money and make their ico was scam and fake.

I think it will be a breakthrough in the future. I mean the passion for crypto needs to be built with things that benefit the community. Perhaps a third party is still needed, even in crypto.

If all the ratings are shit then I assume that it should be stop immediately coz not helpful to community. By the way you're wrong because rating is one way to know which is and which not to participate. You have points about protecting the project that meaningful however it is another solution to another problem. Let each development protect their own area's of responsibility.

Most of them are just being paid in order to put good stars in the project website, that is the main reason of why most of them are crappy right now, they are just the youtubers 2.0 which are getting paid.

I lost faith in rating platforms, specifically icobench, when they have given a scam project (Benebit) high ratings. They should have spotted this one a mile a way given that they claim a 'professional review' of ICOs. Similar platforms might have done the same thing but are too many to bring up. The bottom line is to just do due diligence in what project you set your eyes upon.

That is a very good and sensible idea. You are right and so much far, not all of the rating websites are not faked. I think even all of them being paid to list a coin into the rating.

I never look at those rating platforms. I don't believe them because I think that these rating platforms may be making false analysis because they have charged some items of money. I only believe my own judgment!

Yes this is really disgusting. They give a rating without proper research and many are being decieved and are at loss seeing this rating. So make sure the site you are using gives the true rating or not.

DAICO or other good platform can help. There, investors will have to register their documents. This will serve as an excellent protection against scammers

How come alsomst all ICOs are receiving 5/5 on track ICO and other platforms. I think these ratting are paid rattings and bullshit. Just do your own research before investing.

Most of them are crap nowadays, that is the main reason of why you should avoid taking them as reference in order to make an investment, it is not a trusted source

Hi,
yes this is absolutely true!
the do not understand cryptos real value...
those are just shitty invented ratings.
Don't believe them, anybody shouldn't.
cheers mate

I don't think all rating platforms are shit. After all, no one can foretell how successful a project or an ICO may become, even the investors. ICO's success depends on a lot of factors especially once it enters the market, however, investors and experts' views may also be limited to some technical analysis and readings. In any case, I still trust some of the rating platforms such as ICODROPS, not because of their ratings or anything but because of the details provided especially in terms of the amount raised by a project. Although, you can just do your own research and compare it to some reviews in different rating platforms to widen your views and garner other's opinion about a project.