Do you believe in ICO Ratings?

[copyfile]

Personally, I believe in ratings, and I use them often. Ratings help me to choose a project for investment and to participate in bounty companies. Most of all, I use the resource icoholder. Recommend!

[stefany101]

I believe on ICO rating but not totally 100 % , ICO ratings can help bounty hunters and even investors to choose a good bounty and an ICO where they can invest their time, money and efforts.

[ronaldo macus]

Yes. This is a fairly good ico review site, quite standard criteria. Not more than 90-100%, but it is also much better than other ICO sites like icobech or ico tracking. So icorating is also a pretty good choice. can trust. But does not up 100%, the choice is still by myself

[Ranly123]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. ICO ratings are just done by those company who rates ICO and I don't see why or how the profit in it. Sometimes I don't believe in ICO ratings because I think some of them are being paid by some ICO just to have a good to excellent ratings.

[JustBetweenUs]

Usually I don't trust such websites with ICO rating, because in most cases they are get paid for this. But there's one recourse icodrops.com which proved to be very reliable. And most of there rating are based on there own investigations. I think this is the best ICO recourse now.

I would not trust the either for the same reasons stated above. You don't know how independent they really are, so they are nothing more than one out of many indicators for a project. And these sites have also been wrong many times so you really can't use them as a substitute for doing your own research.

[Tommy len]

 I only use those sites as guide though if there's an ICO I am interested in participating. As OP said, an ICO could be good at first but things can go wrong in the end so better to guard yourself by checking everything about the ICO before joining the presale.

[chakhigh]

When not all of the ico ratings are legit, there are a couple right ones.. I do like those legit platform for checking the correct and solid project. Don't just rely on the rating of an ICO. You have to do your own effort and check social media feedback and the team behind the ICO too. I like this one Ftec ICO, because it is very solid if they deliver on their promise: https://ftec.ai/

[strawbery]

Can refer to, but I will not fully believe that, because most of the time rating agencies and project parties have a certain degree of dark transactions, but there are a lot of information in the rating report can be queried, through which you can judge the quality of the project

[simonmoore]

I don't believe to sites with ratings. I think they just sell it to ICOs. But maybe I'm not right. I do not have any proof of this.

[kudryas]

I don't believe to sites with ratings. I think they just sell it to ICOs. But maybe I'm not right. I do not have any proof of this.

Of course they do, you don't need a proof for that because all those bad ICOs with good ratings are proof enough.

[raiderking96]

yes it is true, sometimes the rating does not guarantee the outcome of the project, there are some projects with big ratings but failed to continue the development of the project, but there are projects with low rating able to reach the target and continue the development of the project.

So we should not rank as the main benchmark in assessing a project, we should also assess the other aspects, such as WP, Management Team, Advisors, Roadmap, and Community projects.

[DoubleShow]

I don't believe in the ratings of ICO, but the information collected there allows me to very quickly make an analysis of the project team and other very important things needed in order to understand whether to invest in the team and its ideas .

[evandy]

Personally, i don't believe in ICO rating 100% from most websites that do rate ICOs, like ICObench.com. We can not know whether the dev team paid for the website to be appreciated. For example, look at John McAfee.

[alexhunter54]

Icos rating are not very important if they dont have any famous investor or any famous advisor. If they have famous investor in cryotocurrency after that they can be very profitable.

[INAQAMAQQU]

I believe but not 100%, because they give a rating in many aspects so we can read whitepaper for more clear and especially we should see the team.

[arkaasay]

I use ico rank as a reference to assess bounty campaigns, But if I want to invest in ICO, I always do my own research before investing in ICO. High value ICO does not mean it can reach the hard top immediately, because many ICO projects give them money, so the score will be high.

[Fayamba]

I dont believe in ICO ratings any longer. I have joined many projects that had a really gone rating from many sites, but the project ended up not achieving anything during their token sale. That is not to say that ICO ratings are not genuine, some really work, but some are just paid for.

[MOG247]

I think the rating of the reference only. Each ICO we join it is enough enough of my research, no view all of any ICO, also also see the review of your project and your company. If a project is a community is also a positive point to start.

[pilipalax2]

I don't believe them. It's just the option of someone who may not have enough knowledge about the project as myself. I know some great teams who have successful startup experience but got low rating just because they didn't do much marketing.

[ROB18]

In a way Yes. I'm using ICO rating as one factors in joining a project. ICO rating companies are also doing there due diligence to provide an honest rating. For me, looking on the rating already took some burden about the legitimacy of the project. It's one of the factor to consider.