Do you believe in ICO Ratings?

[blankpaladin]

Not at all, it was hard to believe in ICO ratings, because even the ICO ratings are not 100% sure. Also, in my own opinion they can not protect you from failures and phishing. ICO rating is not totally accurate, effective and efficient.

[Gamblet]

I have little confidence in such ratings, but I think that they help to weed out really bad projects. Good projects need to be looked for independently. Also, I think it's very difficult to foresee how the project and crypto-currencies in general will develop.

[stripykitteh]

The websites that dedicate to it are mostly sites that get paid to promote certain ICO, so you don't have a warranty, you don't know if the top ico would be good or a scam.

Some websites do get paid to promote coins but there is a lot of those websites that only get recognition if they actually promote scam coins.

[goyal.dkg]

earlier i used to believe them but then i realized it is all about promotion and paid shill , they are paid in btc or in tokens . most of ratings are paid , while few are genuine so we should check ourselves before investing money into any project .

[Abugbilla]

I do belief in ico rating but not from all ico rating sites. Some sites give a rating of about 4.7, but the project sometimes even fail. Though there are numerous ico rating sites that are genuine, most ico ratings are paid for, and do not serve their purpose.

[goyal.dkg]

I'm quite confident with the ICO rating, because usually the rating is obtained from the assessment of some people who understand about ICO and can assess the success rate. To see the rating, we do not see from one website only because sometimes good at website A is not necessarily good at website B. In ICObench usually there is also a low rating and no expert judge, but ICO was a great success. This is what makes us not 100% make rating as a benchmark of the success rate of an ICO. Moreover, even successful ICOs are not necessarily when the price listings are stable and are above the ICO price.

It is what we assume , while reality is completely different . they asses everything and then decide rating and team members offer free tokens or money to them then they publish manipulated ratings . in icobench itself i saw 4 stars for scam ICOs , 4.5 star for completely useless ico in terms of price and future of project .

[krisnajsadrak]

i don't beieve it, a lot of ICO rating site out there now,,
but, i believe in my personal research,,

[Blessed J]

I don't fully believe in ICO ratings but I do consider the ratings of some coins before I invest in it. ICO ratings mostly give details of the project with respect to the advisors, partners and others. These criteria usually help me to analyze the ICO on my own. These are all benefits we get from ICO rating sites.

[markgayamo]

Anyone can make an ICO that has a good ratings but, I my own experience reading and  learning is the best key for a good ICO campaign. Ratings is easy to make and some other data information about an ICO, but for me I join and check the team of the ICO if it is legit or not because, now a days a lot of fake and scam ICO in the social media and other forums of crypto. Sometimes good rating of ICO has a potential in the future and can be useful to the people.

[iamlds08]

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!

yes i do consider ico ratings as a good point of advantage in comparing projects where to invest but i dont know if this entities are accepting payments from the project developers or they are doing it with a good conscience. if they are not accepting payments from project developers, how can they sustain their page and people?

[Jonnitor]

yes icoratings are very effective in determining a good ico. these ratings serves as basis for investor to invest in this kind of project. having a good ratings have a good impression to the investors, that is likely to prosper and to succeed.

[yrsat]

I do not trust sites that assign rating to crypto projects, I believe that all ratings are often appropriated unobjectively. Perhaps they assign a high rating to the project, for a part of the award, I took part in critical projects with high ratings, and in the end I lost all my money. Only study crypto projects yourself.

[dailythemmo]

You can trust them only partially, as many people want to pump and promote their ICOs with the usage of such ratings.

[moonriver]

I check ICO rating sites from time to time.
I take it as a good way to find projects that might be interesting.
After picking up some high ranked ones, I'd do my own research before deciding to invest into it.

[Valareos]

Few days ago I found information about icobench and I was surprised.
Buy a rating, it turned out quite easily.

[KzStPn]

I don't trust the rating of ICO. Although many have the good rating but not in terms of their sales. So it's just as an additional. The product and the team will determine whether the ICO could not succeed and if what is done and the results are good then by all means, ICO will be successful and have a lot of funds.

[mbenga]

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'm not believing on the things that somebody else have made a conclusion instead of me, and furthermore I have heard about one woman who helps her husband to get a higher ratings on the ICO bench.

[derigop]

Relies upon the measurements they utilize, regardless of whether it can be ascertained impartially or despite everything it contains obstinate appraisal. There are a ton of ICO survey organization at the present time, and the most ideal approach to get the target evaluation of a venture is to do our exploration by crosschecking it on numerous ICO audits and asking specifically to the group behind it on their message gathering. We must be more watchful on the grounds that ICOs are not managed and can undoubtedly perform leave trick without being distinguished and hauled to court by us.

[Armaden]

I don't really believe in the ratings of review websites since getting premium listings can possibly boost your rating there.

What I look at in ICOBench is the reviews of the experts, factoring in what they are saying about the ICO, and not focusing on how they rate it.

Another good thing about ICOBench is they display the KYC compliance of the team behind the ICO.

This is a very good thing to consider before joining an ICO because this means that the team behind it is very transparent and that they are confident to stake their reputation on the line for investors to know who really is behind the project.

[beden127]

I think ICO rating is only one factor in project evaluation. On the other hand, many of the ratings are based on objective criterias that hard to fake, such as number of social media followers and etc