Enough Now! - CCB Announcement

[Nxtblg]

Anyway, I believe the exchanges may be arranging something like this anyway? Or some group is. I recall the NobleCoin dev commenting on some groups forming as a way to rate coins. If they charge for it, it's bad news.

Actually, if they charged the users for it, it would be a good thing.

Back in tha day, the bond ratings agencies were honest. They were honest because they were paid by the bond buyers: they realized that pump games or naivete would hurt the very people that were paying them. Said investors had no qualms about taking their business elsewhere, so if a rating agency had even a minor oops - let alone the fustercluck that was revealed in '08 - its pocketbook got whacked.

What changed? The revenue stream. Around the 1980s or so, the ratings agencies began collecting their pay from the bond issuers. Now you can see why their eyes became starrier and rainbow-filled! If an agency was too skeptical, the issuer paying the bills would take his business elsewhere. There was a cultural lag and concern for the brand, but eventually the ratings agencies became as compromised as the research departments of financial institutions with corporate-finance departments.

So...if an honest and reputable altcoin rating service came along that was financed totally by buyers of altcoins, they'd have to be pro-buyer. Every buyer they get into trouble adds to the risk of them going tarts-up.

[YarkoL]

Anyway, I believe the exchanges may be arranging something like this anyway? Or some group is. I recall the NobleCoin dev commenting on some groups forming as a way to rate coins. If they charge for it, it's bad news.

Actually, if they charged the users for it, it would be a good thing.

Back in tha day, the bond ratings agencies were honest. They were honest because they were paid by the bond buyers: they realized that pump games or naivete would hurt the very people that were paying them. Said investors had no qualms about taking their business elsewhere, so if a rating agency had even a minor oops - let alone the fustercluck that was revealed in '08 - its pocketbook got whacked.

What changed? The revenue stream. Around the 1980s or so, the ratings agencies began collecting their pay from the bond issuers. Now you can see why their eyes became starrier and rainbow-filled! If an agency was too skeptical, the issuer paying the bills would take his business elsewhere. There was a cultural lag and concern for the brand, but eventually the ratings agencies became as compromised as the research departments of financial institutions with corporate-finance departments.

So...if an honest and reputable altcoin rating service came along that was financed totally by buyers of altcoins, they'd have to be pro-buyer. Every buyer they get into trouble adds to the risk of them going tarts-up.

In line with your example, we would then have a multitude of cryptocoin rating services, in fact it would make sense for a new coin dev to start a rating service to provide thrills and good vibes to investors 

[r0ach]

Is Rapecoin used to purchase or sell rape 

[Snail2]

An independent "coin rating agency" would be a good concept.

Issues:
- As we seen in 2007 these agencies are quite easy to manipulate.
- It would be difficult to set up a rally independent one as most people here are involved with coins (at least treading them) and have personal feelings towards the devs.
- An independent ratings agency should be paid by the community and not by the devs/fanboys/investors.
- An independent ratings agency should not trade or invest into these alts.
- These guys should be anonymous to ensure their security. But in this case how can we know if lets say a bunch of devs infiltrated into their ranks?

If they can't trade and the community will pay them, then these blokes will starve to death very soon .

[almightyruler]

I wonder if ratings could be wholly or partially calculated using a defined algorithm. Take the humans out of the loop and just use market data.

[Snail2]

I wonder if ratings could be wholly or partially calculated using a defined algorithm. Take the humans out of the loop and just use market data.

Market data could be misleading. For a while AuroraCoin seemed to be the best coin after BTC. Just take a look at it now...

[poornamelessme]

Anyway, I believe the exchanges may be arranging something like this anyway? Or some group is. I recall the NobleCoin dev commenting on some groups forming as a way to rate coins. If they charge for it, it's bad news.

Actually, if they charged the users for it, it would be a good thing.

I meant they may charge coin makers for the privilege of getting rated. And that is dangerous territory.

[Nxtblg]

Anyway, I believe the exchanges may be arranging something like this anyway? Or some group is. I recall the NobleCoin dev commenting on some groups forming as a way to rate coins. If they charge for it, it's bad news.

Actually, if they charged the users for it, it would be a good thing.

I meant they may charge coin makers for the privilege of getting rated. And that is dangerous territory.

Right. On that, we're agreed.