Bitcoin Forum

I had suspicions that many websites that issue IKO ratings are left, but that's it! One of the leading such sites turned out to be a pyramidal-MLM-system of corruption!

ICObench.com - how to become an expert and earn from $ 2000 a month?

For greedy money or poor, this post is a guide to action. For companies wishing to enter the ICO - the methodology of deception. And for investors suffering from a scam, it's time to think.

So. In the courtyard of August 2017. Purely from sporting considerations and to maintain an analytical grasp - I, like many at that time delved into the sphere of the blockbuster: I watched the market, analyzed the possibilities and estimated the scope of future earnings with the violent growth of the bitcoin rate. And after a long enough time to search for an analytical site, I stopped my gaze on only the emerging project - ICObench. At that time it was a simple, and somewhat inconvenient, data warehouse for the ICO, where occasionally some estimates of unknown names appeared. In the test mode, I created the first account (I always do this - even here, on Facebook, the "test" page first appeared). But my eyes and analytical mind first pierced the projects that were glaring at impudence, in which almost every page was written "we do not refund money, 50% of the organizers, we can not cipher - therefore we do not give guarantees for the project!", And then no less amazing his maximum marks.

I want to note that at that time experts ("appraisers") did not need to give comments and explanations to their assessments.

As a person who has a bearing on the financial and technical development of projects (including the protection of projects in state structures and banks), it all seemed like a wild pockmark and the divorce of poor or poorly educated people in the financial sector. And, in order to defeat the newly-minted CEO (CEO) with a sledgehammer of their own incompetence - I ran to register a real account in the ICObench system on my own behalf.

After successfully obtaining the status of an "expert" (for a couple of hours), I set to work. First of all, I contacted the administration with the purpose of proposing to make some changes to the rules for the "experts" and the site's search engine. To my surprise - the proposals were accepted and after some time they successfully earned. After that, I began to gain weight points in the system almost instantly.

I want to note that the weight of the expert's rating in the system was influenced by several points: the number of ratings left, the time registered in the system as an expert, the experience of participating in other ico, participating in crypt conferences and helping to develop the ICObench project. And the more your overall rating - the more you influence the evaluation of the project (understand - what am I getting at?).

In the first weeks, the review of the new ICO took me a few days. With an understanding of all possible documents - I left estimations carefully choosing words. But I was infuriated that some "experts" did not leave a word, they have a higher rating in the system than I do. Competition - there is competition. And after a little correspondence with ICObench, new rules were introduced - a mandatory written evaluation of the project. After that, the reviews I left earlier added enough "mana" to skip the evaluation of the project from 4.5 to 3.8 points. And with some other rating experts in friends - could bring down the score down to 2.2 points, if the project in our opinion turned out to be full zashvarom or divorce.

But, at some point, I began to receive letters from those very unsatisfied CEO estimates, with requests to "review the assessment," "talk on Skype" and even "fly to Spain to chat." By me, such obsessive evaluations of communication are regarded as a threat - and in this desire I refused to ignore.

The matter is that in the ICObench system, any previously left estimate can be changed, and the commentary is supplemented or deleted. Most often, such requests came from projects. And although I have not been in "experts" for a long time and I have nothing to do with ICObench - requests to influence the evaluation are still being received.

And now about the most important thing - about earnings. How much does it cost to write a review on ICObench, if you are registered in the system as an "expert"? On the exact amount I can not say. But in the tobacco lobby, I was told the following figures: From $ 300 for the change in the evaluation of the initial expert. From $ 500 for an average assessment with a small summary of the project. And from $ 700 for a good evaluation with an excellent, detailed resume. (initial-medium-excellent - this is the weight of the voice of the "expert" in the system). This as for real characters.

But there are robots (clones) in the system. These registered and supposedly real "experts" are created solely for the purpose of selling ratings. Most often these are couples who got wind of the "Urvi dough" and "quick money" on the ratings of friends and family. Clones can be bought (with a page in FB and LinkedIn) or created by yourself. And through VPN quietly evaluate projects with prepaid for wholesale.

How to search for clients? It's simple. You can send a personal message to the newly made ICO directors at Linkedin or on the same FB with the advertisement of their services. Or, leaving angry comments with poor ratings on ICObench - wait until they contact you. They say that forums also do a good job of finding customers.

And now about me. And here everything is simple - I do not want to take part in this farce. This kitsch, the loony guy and the divorce me is already too annoying. Before that, back in December of last year, I was preparing an article about such frauds in the crypt and ratings area, but did not publish it, because a) ICObench promised to fix the situation, since such infa would have affected their status b) it was not it is interesting to throw shit.

Perhaps, here I will finish. I'm interested in the crypt sphere, but because 95% of all projects are scum (the remaining 5% are purely technological projects) - I do not want to have anything in common with existing ratings. Moreover, I do not accept companies that support the shadow sector, the sphere of fraud and deception, which are not registered anywhere and do not pay taxes anywhere, working as a bandit "on trust", Russian hiding behind an English-speaking mask and deleting projects that are unfavorable for their own rating (I'm talking about ICObench now). Recently - I hoped for the best, but today I'm far from this and this approach is not accepted.

And as a summary of my advice for each ICO and investor - do not be tempted by ratings and boycott such resources. And if you do not believe me - go and try it yourself!

Source - http://telegra.ph/Pochemu-nelzya-doveryat-ICO-rejtingam-04-26
The original post on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/v.udartsev/posts/10215551880491186

I support the idea of analyzing and choosing projects by yourself only. Nobody knows the truth and only your predicted trends will help you to make the right decision which will minimize losses and maximize profit.

 ICOs are one of the riskiest ventures there are in he crypto market. with high loss chances. Investing in them needs thorough research and belief in the quality of the project yo are investing in. otherwise one is headed the loss making direction, which is really not the reason why we are here. some of these ICOs are ust as good and goes ahead to become valuable but not all

Well way back a year a go which the forum is clean and just very informative the ico rating sort of they tend to always gives you right information but right now mostly of it is those ico rating sites is being paid by those Team of the ICO to put their token on their website and rate it high sort of it is a good token that is the happening right now so i do agree on you that it is good choice if you analyze by your self the ICO

There was a lot of thief have created such a scammy ico rating site for the marketing purpose only and it can't be tolerated. A high rating in the ico rating site can't be trusted and i have seen someone has created a medium post about that. DYOR is always become the best choice to determine how good the ico is.

You should not blindly trust any such ico benchmarking websites as any of them can be bought by money.
But what we shouldn't forget is they are also a source to reference links to the project's components, the team, their so called affiliates and partners and a links to various ways to prove them.

I have always considered ICO Rating as completely worthless. No professional investor is going to place any stock in a ratings system that is often little better than a repetition of existing public information with rating numbers pulled out of someones ass. I have on many occassions exposed obvious fradulent ICO's that had high ICO rating from multiple sites. In each case even the most cursory due dilligence would have exposed the fraud. Now that it has been exposed that they regularly sell high ratings you can view them as little better than paid accessories to fraud.

I do not think that any real investor will ever gonna look into any rating sites, the rating is manipulated and paid of most of time it is not a rocket science to realize this, I am not a big investor and I never visited an ICO rating site for advice or rating I do not even take the information they provide as an 100% accurate information .

I think that at the start of their ideas, everyone had good goals. Now there are very few ICO rating sites that give a reliable estimate.

I believe a little bit about the ICOBOX service

ICO rating are giving an information about the rate of on going and coming ICO's but it's definitely not 100% real because mostly giving an ICO rating is fake or being manipulated through paid. It's better to not make a decision base on ICO ratings because it's too risky.

From my point of view it is stupid mistake to trust such ratings because every expert has his own opinion and methods for analyzing. I am sure that you should do it by your own.

ICO ratings are hard to make and maybe bias is some ways. not all ICO ratings are bad especially if they do not profit from it but sometimes really hard to rate an ICO as too many factors to consider. anyways, its up to each of us to do due diligence with our investments.

Yeah, unfortunately many ICO ratings are paid by the team of ICO project right now. It makes difficult to see which ICOs have the objective rates. That's why to choose ICO for investment or for bounty, I prefer to provide my own research. I analyze the project info, its legality, team member, and so on myself.   

ICO rankings or quality assessments are just references. A good ICO must be based on a number of factors, moreover, the acceptance of the community. Sometimes good ICOs that the community does not accept are still a failure

ICO  rating sites are just human controlled sites with some peoples opinion attached to them, there is nothing special about them and most of the time they arent as accurate as we would like, some also operate under influence and might ive inaccurate projections about a coin.  they may be used as a point of refference but not really as a decision making pointer

ICO-ratings just identify the data or information of the ICO project. It not really determines which one is the best ICO. You should analyze yourself to find the ICO that meets with your expectation. For me, it only shows a general info of an ICO.       

There are many scams in the ICO. They are also the source of reference project components, teams, links to affiliates and partners, and links to various proofs. Most ICO ratings are fake or paid for. So we can't take the information they provide as 100% accurate information.

In our experience we had felt ICO Bench to be one of the more trustworthy sites, namely as it is free to list there.

However, we learned early on that things weren't quite as they seem. When contacting ICO Bench, they encouraged us to purchase the premium packages to make our project more 'visible' to experts, but that experts rated projects independently and in their own time.

In the meantime we received many offers to get positive expert ratings from third party marketers via Telegram.

Well, after checking the reviews of some of our competitors it soon became clear that something was up. Competitors with inferior products to us were receiving 5/5/5 with no comment whatsoever. We then received a negative review from a leading ICO 'expert' criticising us for very small elements and other things that were clearly available on our token offering document and our ICO home page. He had clearly not viewed either before leaving his rating, and had granted 5/5/5 reviews to our competitors without comment.

Obviously there is no way of knowing what exactly has gone on here, but it is a good indication of how this industry works in these still early stages.

And I do agree with previous comments that doing one's own DD is a MUST!

While there are definitely well-informed people in crypto and have a good idea of marketing, TA and actual blockchain knowledge, the truth is that no one KNOWS what is going to happen in this market, that's why it's rather exciting.

I recommend picking projects with genuine use case and have a personal appeal to you. Verify their staff so you know they are genuine (easy in the case of reverse-ICOs such as the PlayChip! www.playchip.global) and put some money in, and forget about it for a couple of years.

In a couple of years time the genuine ICOs of today will be thriving - you just have to know how to pick them

I agreed, better do your own analysis. Much better is to gain friends you can work together with in doing the same thing.

Because most time they are pay to rate a project so is not that they are really rating the project because of the true potentials. I don't trust information on all the ico rating sites

ICO investment is to take high risks. Should you evaluate an ICO in all aspects and have the application in practice? You should choose an experienced ICO project. It is important to have a strong community in support of the ICO

because in my opinion the ICO rating is obtained by paying the ICO rating provider and by voting, then the voting can be obtained only by distributing airdrop for everyone who votes the ICO, so that's why I never believed in the ICO rating.

I also feel distrust of the rating sites. Often observed there fraudulent projects. now I rely only on myself. I analyze the projects myself and take on all responsibility for the selection.

I reckon, most of them are paid reviews and ratings, so generally i only trust my own judgement in this market, everybody as an agenda

I believe that most of the reviews we see on the internet are paid. directly or indirectly. if the first case then it's worthless due to their interest and biases but on latter its looks genuine effort from the reviewer with a pinch of salt
it can be useful if you want a quick summary of any project or telegram, site link etc :D  but investing only based on those so-called reviews. NO!!

Ratings are good, but I look at them last. We have a lot of different ratings that provide sites, but of them only a few that can be trusted. Soon there will be real platforms where there will be an honest rating. ;) ;) ;)

It's easy. After all, these ratings may be false. You can write anything. Therefore, trust the already proven situation. For example reviews. very good and most important thing available!

they are subject to fraud, by the analysis and evaluation is only based on several aspects; the assessment may be biased by the unit paid to marketing ICO, ... this is only one element to refer to the user and all investment decisions are in themselves

Actually, that ICO ratings is the first thing I would check before I will participate into signature bounty campaign because I consider it as high importance to prevent from joining spam bounty campaigns. Another factor that I would consider is by reviewing the whitepaper to check if it is legitimate and the bounty manager that will handle the project. I would prefer bounty managers with no red trust ratings at least I could feel secure that I am on the right track.

I have no experience investing in ICO, but I'm very carefully studying the state of demand for ICO. From all the studied material, I realized ICO-ratings are corrupt girls.

For me, I will not recommend it for anyone because most of these ICO ratings have proven to be false. I have seen a lot of them with top ratings that ended  up not being good enough and some with low ratings being better than the former. If you are looking to invest in an ICO, trust your intuitions and own analysis instead, rather than some rating.

ico rating is very good is not a good guarantee if ico will achieve a success and will give you a lot of profits, now many ico pay to get a good rating, and for that you have to do your own research before investing, very much ico with a good rating but ico they failed

True, Almost every ICO doing this to reach masses.


Unfortunately most of the investors especially newbies only follow shillers/influencer. and we all know how that road ends.

I think you can trust but not to all rates, as I noticed popular rating platforms are more oriented on paid rates and reviews, but there are still some platforms which obviously have not paid rates and reviews, so they might be trusted. For example: www.icoguide.com

agree with your opinion on the popular platforms. And it would be great if they will change their attitude to the issue, as their not fair rates make problems to the good projects and ideas.

as many ico scams are out now. especially and they know that it's a good thing to do in this crypto work. and many hackers are taking on the ico's coming out today, so nobody wants to trust investors here. but there are some investors trying to invest in ico's.

I agree with you on that and think the best way is to do your own research and have faith in it delivery , the rating might be paid for and they are also in business to make money , at least there should be a reason for them to rate them which should be open to all if they really want people to believe in the rating .

In simple words we have price for everything so don't trust anyone blindly because they maybe getting money and giving thoe positive feedbacks on those projects since the ICO becomes a profitable business.So we need to know how to invest on the new projects or just hold your bitcoin for longer term.

there is no ICO rating site which will 100% tell you good project or not. they just give marks with several parameters. and smart scammers will make everything so that these parameters become good.

Sometimes something that instant was not yet well enough to be felt. and this might be worthy of a rating site is said to exist. Maybe I will say a little rough that believe the site rating is a tricking the public. Since the beginning of may be better and love towards the analysis because it will be much more rewarding in results.

That is absolutely true. Icobench now obviously accepting payment for a good rating to give. We can't trust them anymore because of the corruption in it. There should be someone who is going to make a good ico website review that can't be manipulate by the ICO team members but that is so impossible. lol. Everything in crypto can be paid and that is the reality.

The main reason I don't trust ICO ratings is that I think they may have an economic relationship with ICO merchants. Of course, this is just my personal guess!

I don't really know how an ICO rating sites work, cause sometime i read a message in a new thread of project's ANN saying that the project is listed in that ico rating site and asking the one responsible about the project to follow up that listing. I think that is a bit obvious, An ICO rating should be independent and give a rating on their own.

these rating websites, as well as all the other ones of such type, were created in order to offer the promotion service to various companies. The more you pay, the better place you have. Everything is clear, it is pure marketing.

You cannot trust the ico ratings because they can be paid. That is one thing that we have to know as humans is that every one has a price and these people who run the ico ratings websites can be paid to give good ratings to a scam project just to get people to put money in it. it is always better to take out some time yourself and do your research yourself

Ratings cannot be trusted. All ratings cost nothing now. Pay money for all ratings of a campaign and they not the presents.

This has become a business if the hyip has a monitor to check if the hyip are still paying we now have ICO rating to check if the ico is legit they don't differ you will need to pay them to get a good rating for your ICO you want to know then check those failed ICO they've got good rating.

Though ICO ratings are not everything, And day by day ICO rating websites, Apps are coming incredibly. The number of ICO ratings websites are huge now. But Everyone is not a scammer in the world, but everyone wants to earn money too! I like icobench, their rating system is very wise. They are greedy also in some ways, but still their most of the good rating ICO is doing well in the crypto market.

It is simply because all ratings are just based on the predictions of the majority and nothing is constant when it comes on the future lf the projects in the market. For example, there are projects that are having high ICO rate but is not succeeding and there those which are not that popular but is still manage to reach its hardcap on crowdsale.

Now there have been so many ICO rating sites and I think not all of them are genuine therefore giving your trust to them is not somehow good. Some are doing good but others are not.

I have always suspected that this was the case, now with your investigation, I can use evidence when someone wants to refute my theory, thank you for so long investigation, is that at first sight is obvious that a centralized system like this can be violated by the greed of people, so we have to be careful in whom we put our trust.

I always felt that many of the so called sites get some money or other rewards from the ICO team to post ratings, after all they gotta need to eat too. Easy way to find out is to check if most of the ratings are above 4/5 or 8/10.

You can't trust them because they are humans like you who went out of their way to make their own research and personal review of crypto projects. Them being humans means they are subject to vices like bribes and can be influenced to make reviews that will favour the project in order to fool investors.

the site rating many depicting the true state of affairs is not. This is, of course, tantamount to fraud analysis that will culminate in unexpected results. analysis and research of its own much more benefit for sure. a lot of knowledge which can be understood in terms of these and not just the end result only in the form of profit that can be obtained.

There are reports that many ICO projects have been bribing these rating sites to increase their product rating, so they can't be trusted. These ratings are not genuine and they got it in exchange of money. So, I would recommend everyone to do their own research instead of relying on these rating sites.

Rating is one part of ICO but a lot of other factors are to be checked before taking any decision to invest in an ICO because you know that everything can be manipulated by money power. Never believe in these things and always do your own research as that will give you much better information.

Nowadays, there are many ICO rating site. But most of them are trust less. Therefore, i'm recommended you to do own simple research before joining the ICOs

Why not you can, but you cannot trust all of them. It should be admitted that  a a lot of popular ratings are paid, but there are some not so popular but more real and not paid platforms, that are trustworthy. I would recommend www.icoguide.com this is favorite portal of big investors.

This paid rates have very bad influence all over the market, and this harms the ICO industry not giving to the good ideas the opportunity to live.