Do you believe in ICO Ratings?

[bat11]

Not all the time. Sometimes it doesnt work or its not 100% reliable. Maybe it can serve as a guide or a means of checking whether the ICO have all the requirements needed.

[1714594427]

1714594427

[1714594427]

1714594427

[1714594427]

1714594427

[1714594427]

1714594427

[1714594427]

1714594427

[nfransisca]

the ratings just for reference. but i believe that impact to investor to make decision for invest in the ico. but the other things that most important is the dev team.

[hubballi]

I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.

Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.

So let's discuss ICO Rating!

ICO rating and token selling is different. How do you think that they are giving this ratings. Like you Re saying that rating is bad even then the ICO token sell!reached fully that is because they have started marketing very good and most of them have insiders investment so when they are!listed you can see that this coin price list very high but when they see lot of!users!have started to buy the insiders!start selling and they just forget thatcoin.

So I think this rating giving site! Are!waste and believing it and investing will give!you loss also

[boltz]

I don't know what to think anymore as I have saw so many good projects with high ratings on ICObench and they do not even reach the soft cap so lately I'm avoiding icobench and all the other ICO ratings as I cannot put my trust in some randoms speaking of the project. More than this, I would like that every project that is running ICO to have the soft cap achieved before they engage in running the ICO. There are to many scams, more than in 2014-2015 so this is not good for cryptos.

[travwill]

Project ratings can give a good direction for analysis, help choose from several projects, or give a fresh opinion to the project. However, always check the analyst's competence.

[Otorofo]

I'm used to trust only myself, I don't believe in ICO ratings ... I study and watch each project myself

[Btcepenbob]

Well yes I do believe in ICO ratings but it is not my baseline on investing ICO. I regularly scan ICO which are listed in ICO ratings sites. But I don't believe the number of ratings of that ICO.

[TrufieldICO]

No. Most ICO ratings are a paid service where projects have to pay to get good ratings. If you don't pay them, they give you poor rating. Best investment in crypto space in 2018 is the Trufield project. This project will revolutionize healthcare for millions of people in the world by providing them with free electronic health data management system. Pre-ICO is live and open to everyone to invest with tokens at 25% discount. Learn more here at http://Trufield.com

[anavyle]

I believe that the ratings on most sites can be bought and not be a reality.  It is better to analyze the team and the idea of ​​the project, rather than look at the rating

Yep, as most people here I also don't believe ratings. I really spent time researching the ICO if I'm interested, looking maybe at about 20-30 different things and angles, it's very time consuming but it is necessary.

[londawzen]

ICO ratings Are very useful, but I think you should always do your own research on certain ICOS that you are going to invest in.

[rightnowwe]

ICO ratings Are very useful, but I think you should always do your own research on certain ICOS that you are going to invest in.

The rating on most websites does not matter much because any web developer could make up numbers for an ICO if he or she is promoting the coin for money.

[Wittycoin]

I used to believe that, but I was disappointed a couple of times already with those with high ICO ratings but in the end, they were scam and some did not achieve success at all. But ICO ratings is really useful though, because most of the ICOs are really good, but do not trust too much on ratings.

[MadSmiles]

I used to believe that, but I was disappointed a couple of times already with those with high ICO ratings but in the end, they were scam and some did not achieve success at all. But ICO ratings is really useful though, because most of the ICOs are really good, but do not trust too much on ratings.

That is one of the reasons why I don't like to read what other people in those sites put on a crowdsale rating. They should just leave the coins alone.

[9tails]

I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.

Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.

So let's discuss ICO Rating!

ICO rating's is one of the way to believe but not at all, You can do research with your own way. Research their team,product and read the white paper.

[BossMacko]

Sometimes yes sometimes no, Ive been in an ICO with a lot of positive ICO rating but once they the project finish the ICO admin and teams are hardly to be found and eventually they run with all the investors money. ICO is still a risk so dont ever believe ratings or reviews an ICO will have a chance of success if teams are legit and already have a successful project in the past.

[daglordjames]

I really dont believe about ratings but for the investors does because they're choosing a good one.

[concons31]

If you want to make money in this sector, it is always about your own research and our own information you gathered.  a lot of ico ratings are either sponsored or made by people participating in the bounty.

[Aristus]

I always like the idea that there are some outside parties that support the investors to feel confident for every ICO that they give in. But I in my personal understanding about ICO rating should not be the major basis for your decision to put your funds it is just part of one of your sources, better to conduct personal research and specially knowing the team.

[Star_Bucks]

I see many Websites that provide ratings for ongoing ICOs or for the future. Examples such as the ICObench.com Website, ICOrating.com and others.

Which is my question whether you believe in the rating provided by the website. Seeing many ICO's do not match what they value. Many ICOs are arguably good ratings but when the token sales of the project only reach softcap. And there are projects that I see have a fairly mediocre rating but their token sales reach hardcap. I took the example of Lalaworld on ICObench.com they get Rating 3.7 but their token is sold out.

So let's discuss ICO Rating!

I believe in ICO ratings, because it's a good way to know if the ICO that you will invest in is good enough and have the capability. ICO ratings are really a big help to those who are finding good ICOs to invest in because the higher the ratings is, the more trust of people will give it to that ICO.

[Infracoins]

actually yes!...i don't know the reason, but I must admit that it helps to attract people when they see an ICO rating!....