Do you believe in ICO Ratings?

[Gracie12]

I have never believed in ico ratings, so many of the ratings of ico projects are false. Investors are cheated to invest in their ico by high ratings. I used to believe in ico ratings, but now I hate them very much.

[1714581255]

1714581255

[1714581255]

1714581255

[1714581255]

1714581255

[bountylayomi]

I do not really believe in the ICO rating sites as some of the highly rated ICOs do fail sometimes. I just do little research on my own about a project then I decide to invest in it or not knowing fully well that I am responsible for my decision and will have no one to blame if anything goes wrong with the projects am investing on.

[Dacosta Osei-Tutu]

I do not believe in ICO ratings these days. Most of them are paid ratings. No wonder some scam ICOs still had higher ratings  

[Olimpikflame]

I don"t look at the rating of the project, because I know that everything in our world can be bought. Very often I saw high scores from scam projects. There were also projects with high ratings, which even soft cap didn't collect

[Starlaaa87]

For a long time everyone knows that the rating is bought and sold. There are many examples when a project with a low rating shows itself very well. Or Vice versa, a project with a high rating turns out to be scam or their tokens cost nothing. And why look at such ratings?

[Semenpaliy]

There are many websites with ICO reiting, but in my opinion the site https://icobench.com/ provides very accurate and reliable information about companies.

[rainmonsoon]

No, don't trust ICO ratings. Do your research. There is no shortcut to that, to your own work! Don't trust the ICO ratings because they can be bought, and don't trust the most visible projects because it just depend on marketing spend, not on the quality of the project! Look at the substance, the business case, the value of the space they are claiming to take over or "disrupt", the nature of tech to be developed, the business experience of the team (most teams don't have a clue of the underlying business!!! so they can't disrupt anything...)

Recently, I have been following in particular Stellar and Stellar-related tokens. Stellar is on the rise because of the prospective Coinbase listing - probably one of the best bets for 2018. Up by more than 50% from the level a week ago, and it will continue for sure. Price has potential to multiply! Worth looking into tokens issued on the Stellar platform that will also profit from the new rise of Stellar...

There, I found an interesting, solid project, experienced people, with their token issued on the Stellar blockchain: AXU of argentas.io. They seem to have ANN for their community-oriented presale too https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4431900.0 Financial blockchain, solid idea & white paper, thinking of putting in some. Just too low profile so far, but it definitely is a hidden gem in my opinion.

Of course one has to diversify between tokens, not to put the eggs in one basket, but this one looks to be worth the risk with a very attractive presale price of 0.4 XLM for 1 AXU that is 50% less than their ICO price later, so together with the underlying Stellar price going up, giving a double boost to it, looks to be like a sure winner, gains soon in pocket I believe. Following some EOS related projects too along with other Stellar projects, maybe finding some further ones there too. But I am definitely for AXU as an undiscovered diamond - others I like are much more well known - so far...

[Remat34]

Thou, ICO rating has been used a measurement towards identifying some promising projects, I must confess it has led so many people into serious problems. Thou helpful, however, the fact that an ICO is rated amazing doesn't mean it can't eventually end a scam.

Henceforth, aside basing one's research on ICO rating only to invest in a project, I think it's best if other options like studying the white paper/Roadmap, Team/developers are put into considerations.

[Rockkey]

For this year I saw too many examples when projects with high ratings deceived their investors. For this reason, I have no confidence in these organizations. I'm not saying that they are all scammers, but I think that there is no need to rely too much on the opinions of outsiders.

[NEERAJ ANAND]

The only ICO rating is not a way to trust on a project. Behind the success of any ICO, team member background and project roadmap also contribute. ICO rating is only a part of it.

[relaxx]

I do not trust any ratings, because they do not provide objective information. Virtually any rating can be bought, and many project teams do this to enhance their investment attractiveness, even those that are fraudulent can have high ratings

[John1122]

You are right, high ratings can be bought. Alas this happens, because not for nothing 80% ico is a scam. Therefore, I always check the company myself, regardless of the rating level.

[cryptolord2077]

I don"t look at the rating of the project, because I know that everything in our world can be bought. Very often I saw high scores from scam projects. There were also projects with high ratings, which even soft cap didn't collect

If you are an investor then you simply have to look at such sites as cryptodriffer and icodrops. Look at their statistics, these sites are honest and have strong analysts.

[untilshok]

We have to believe that ICO rating sites have criteria that they use in conducting research. I think that some rating sites, such as icobench you can trust.

[sandiskumen]

I think this is not an objective assessment of a project. In addition, I'm sure we can buy a good evaluation. This is also a gift campaign. To understand the quality.We should try to analyze the project independently. But do not trust other people to say but we have to do our own assessment for analysis and choose the most promising Ico.

[dr_chen]

I use ICO ratings in my ICO researches, i believe them but i don't fully believe in any information at all, so i take a look at different opinions on different web sites every times.

[Taniya1901]

The rating is certainly not the only criterion for choosing an ico. But in my vzlyad not unimportant factor that should draw attention. I always look at the rating

[rizkyhiw]

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!

Icobench, ico rating, etc
They review everything about ico, the shortcomings and advantages of a project they include there. Depending on how we respond, do they deserve to be the benchmark for choosing a really good ico. Some of the ico I follow are from there. Like today, wpp energy has a 4.7 rating on icobench. Let's see next.

[TreXzar]

As many people have already said, do you own research. I look at ICOBench and some influencers like Ian Balina and Sergios spreadsheet for news and reviews about upcoming ICOs. In fact the recent ICO I went in on all came from those recommendations, like Quarkchain, Sparkster, Credits, Arcblock etc...

[pjr77]

In General, there are excellent sites that can be trusted and that really show good projects. And on some sites you can buy these ratings. So you need to pay attention to such sites