Savedroid was a "scam" (it's now back). Still, don't trust experts 100%

[thesmallgod]

do not be decieve be many online rating and reviews you see on media. All this does not justify a real project. infact saying this from experience many ico listing and review platform are being paid to feature their ICO and also to get high rating. I have ones work as a digital marketing officer of a top ICO review and listing platform. during this time I use to recieve and also send message to ICO for listing and rating on the website. so the fact that ICO bench rate savedroid doesnt make save for investment. they are just doing what they are paid to do

[1713287964]

1713287964

[1713287964]

1713287964

[1713287964]

1713287964

[1713287964]

1713287964

[energodar2019]

This just proves two points, one is that the ico rating websites are no guarantee that you cannot be scammed, secondly even if the team is open and transparent during the ico it can still run away with all the money after collecting the funds.
Last but not the least, always remember the rules of investment like; never put all your eggs in one basket, only invest what you can afford to loose and every investment is risky.

I fully agree that you can not invest all the money in one project - this is the basic rule! I choose about 5 ICO in which I invest and when I evaluate the project, I certainly look at the ratings, but I do not always trust them! Earlier I thought that John McAffe was a good expert and listened to his opinion, but now I see that he simply takes money for advertising ICO 250 000$

[cryptomorphines]

Those experts looks like dickheads which are getting paid for every shit review that they giving to these new projects,unreliable as ever,these sites shouldnt be a reference because most of the review are scams.ICOBench is one o the most corrupt and biased cryptocurrency ICO review website which is why you will need to do your own research before investing to anything.

[mariangpalad]

Indee ICObench is never a good source of reviews,the experts are just normal users which are getting paid by these ICOs,
normally these people does know some basic blockchaim knowledge,you can easily know which of these people are experts ,most of them giving ratings without comments are just shit people from nowhere giving their stars.

[cryptotnak]

Of course it is not a reliable source,those shit experts are the reason why most of the investors are losing their money,they are giving shit reviews from these projects that is why most of the investors are risking their money without digging up some informations about the project.Best thing to do is to do your own research so there will be no regrets.

[Larochka]

And I thought that this project is not going to end well. I was skeptical towards him from the very beginning and now I understand that it is not in vain.

[hiddenmist]

If this is a scam then ICO rating means it cannot be trusted. These ICO rating sites are already fully paid by their clients and doesn't care if this ICO's are scam or not. Bette do your own diligence and do not rely on ICO ratings anymore.

[cryptamod]

This is the reason why we shoulnd be trusting these ICO rating websites because they are just getting paid everytime these new ICOs asked for their reviews,most of the new investors are the targets of these website as far as i know there are only 2/10 new investors are doing a lot of research before investing to something,these websites shouldnt be trusted.

[IamAlen]

I don't take part in the ICO but a good friend from me does. At the moment i dont think that savedroid is a scam , I think it was a pr move. I hope i'm right with my opinion because of all the people how invest in this project.

[jumbo]

It is still not clear, what happened to savedroid, yet it may be either a scam or an extremely inappropriate marketing (their funds are actually in their wallet and they are not gone, according to the team). But this topic doesn't look right.

Let me explain why. I totally agree, that the ICO industry has to become more mature and has to implement better Due Diligence standards. Although, this particular case is by no mean can be an example for some expert's overlook or something, which audit would catch. Long story short: The CEO of the company, which existed since 2015, had the real team and the real office in Germany, and even got funding from professional VCs and those VCs on their Board... that CEO just ran with company's money. What kind of due diligence would catch that risk? I've worked in the PwC in the business evaluation and audit, and I can tell you, that there is no test for this risk. Anal probe? Wouldn't work.

Also, it is fun to mention, that ICOBench score for savedroid was actually below their average score for the successful ICOs and way lower, than most of other ICO review platforms gave to savedroid. Just a simple list:

ICOBench: 4.0 / 5
TrackICO: 4.8 / 5 - https://web.archive.org/web/20180412080252/https://www.trackico.io/ico/savedroid/
ICOHolder: 4.28/5 - https://icoholder.com/en/savedroid-17375
WiseICO: 4.8/5 - https://wiserico.com/ico/savedroid
ICOTokenNews: 4.7/5 https://www.icotokennews.com/icos/savedroid/

And that is the case with every single website out there, which made a review or rated savedroid.

It looks like ICOBench and those experts actually did way better, than anyone else from the public space. Am I missing something?

Why is this savedroid thing became something, which Analyst101 is trying to use against those guys, who actually did better than everyone else? It really smells very bad to me. Smells like some black marketing attempt, especially taking into account other Analyst101 posts - he is obviously a freelancer (translation, "reviews") looking for paid job. I do not really see, what is his agenda here (may be none, just some merit fishing), but I doubt the whole point of this article, since the logic behind the reasoning is twisted and doesn't support the point, but on the contrary.

The real problem is not some guys publicly engaging with ICOs and publicly expressing their personal opinion, the problem is in many of others, who pose as professionals or experts and in private conversations are trying to lure investors into high risk investments (and ICOs are indeed all in this group). They even sometimes start private companies calling them BlaBlaBla Investments\Fund\Ventures etc to use such entities as a deceit to cover up the fact, that most of them have a very limited knowledge and has very low experience in both venture investments and crypto industry. They are making ordinary people to invest into extremely risky projects, because they know the selling tactics. Many of them have a relevant background in traditional financial products sales, but were not successful there. They do not understand enough neither blockchain nor decentralized character and advantages of this new industry, so in many cases they actually hurt more than do good.

[Analyst101]

It is still not clear, what happened to savedroid, yet it may be either a scam or an extremely inappropriate marketing (their funds are actually in their wallet and they are not gone, according to the team). But this topic doesn't look right.

Let me explain why. I totally agree, that the ICO industry has to become more mature and has to implement better Due Diligence standards. Although, this particular case is by no mean can be an example for some expert's overlook or something, which audit would catch. Long story short: The CEO of the company, which existed since 2015, had the real team and the real office in Germany, and even got funding from professional VCs and those VCs on their Board... that CEO just ran with company's money. What kind of due diligence would catch that risk? I've worked in the PwC in the business evaluation and audit, and I can tell you, that there is no test for this risk. Anal probe? Wouldn't work.

Also, it is fun to mention, that ICOBench score for savedroid was actually below their average score for the successful ICOs and way lower, than most of other ICO review platforms gave to savedroid. Just a simple list:

ICOBench: 4.0 / 5
TrackICO: 4.8 / 5 - https://web.archive.org/web/20180412080252/https://www.trackico.io/ico/savedroid/
ICOHolder: 4.28/5 - https://icoholder.com/en/savedroid-17375
WiseICO: 4.8/5 - https://wiserico.com/ico/savedroid
ICOTokenNews: 4.7/5 https://www.icotokennews.com/icos/savedroid/

And that is the case with every single website out there, which made a review or rated savedroid.

It looks like ICOBench and those experts actually did way better, than anyone else from the public space. Am I missing something?

Why is this savedroid thing became something, which Analyst101 is trying to use against those guys, who actually did better than everyone else? It really smells very bad to me. Smells like some black marketing attempt, especially taking into account other Analyst101 posts - he is obviously a freelancer (translation, "reviews") looking for paid job. I do not really see, what is his agenda here (may be none, just some merit fishing), but I doubt the whole point of this article, since the logic behind the reasoning is twisted and doesn't support the point, but on the contrary.

The real problem is not some guys publicly engaging with ICOs and publicly expressing their personal opinion, the problem is in many of others, who pose as professionals or experts and in private conversations are trying to lure investors into high risk investments (and ICOs are indeed all in this group). They even sometimes start private companies calling them BlaBlaBla Investments\Fund\Ventures etc to use such entities as a deceit to cover up the fact, that most of them have a very limited knowledge and has very low experience in both venture investments and crypto industry. They are making ordinary people to invest into extremely risky projects, because they know the selling tactics. Many of them have a relevant background in traditional financial products sales, but were not successful there. They do not understand enough neither blockchain nor decentralized character and advantages of this new industry, so in many cases they actually hurt more than do good.

Whoa, I didn't expect that. I am not trying to extort anybody.  I am just saying we should be careful next time. Yes, there are other rating sites but I happen to noticed it on ICO bench because I use the website (I mean whether it's lower than other rating agencies, 4 out of 5 is still very high compared to most other ICOs).

[Analyst101]

It is still not clear, what happened to savedroid, yet it may be either a scam or an extremely inappropriate marketing (their funds are actually in their wallet and they are not gone, according to the team). But this topic doesn't look right.

Let me explain why. I totally agree, that the ICO industry has to become more mature and has to implement better Due Diligence standards. Although, this particular case is by no mean can be an example for some expert's overlook or something, which audit would catch. Long story short: The CEO of the company, which existed since 2015, had the real team and the real office in Germany, and even got funding from professional VCs and those VCs on their Board... that CEO just ran with company's money. What kind of due diligence would catch that risk? I've worked in the PwC in the business evaluation and audit, and I can tell you, that there is no test for this risk. Anal probe? Wouldn't work.

Also, it is fun to mention, that ICOBench score for savedroid was actually below their average score for the successful ICOs and way lower, than most of other ICO review platforms gave to savedroid. Just a simple list:

ICOBench: 4.0 / 5
TrackICO: 4.8 / 5 - https://web.archive.org/web/20180412080252/https://www.trackico.io/ico/savedroid/
ICOHolder: 4.28/5 - https://icoholder.com/en/savedroid-17375
WiseICO: 4.8/5 - https://wiserico.com/ico/savedroid
ICOTokenNews: 4.7/5 https://www.icotokennews.com/icos/savedroid/

And that is the case with every single website out there, which made a review or rated savedroid.

It looks like ICOBench and those experts actually did way better, than anyone else from the public space. Am I missing something?

Why is this savedroid thing became something, which Analyst101 is trying to use against those guys, who actually did better than everyone else? It really smells very bad to me. Smells like some black marketing attempt, especially taking into account other Analyst101 posts - he is obviously a freelancer (translation, "reviews") looking for paid job. I do not really see, what is his agenda here (may be none, just some merit fishing), but I doubt the whole point of this article, since the logic behind the reasoning is twisted and doesn't support the point, but on the contrary.

The real problem is not some guys publicly engaging with ICOs and publicly expressing their personal opinion, the problem is in many of others, who pose as professionals or experts and in private conversations are trying to lure investors into high risk investments (and ICOs are indeed all in this group). They even sometimes start private companies calling them BlaBlaBla Investments\Fund\Ventures etc to use such entities as a deceit to cover up the fact, that most of them have a very limited knowledge and has very low experience in both venture investments and crypto industry. They are making ordinary people to invest into extremely risky projects, because they know the selling tactics. Many of them have a relevant background in traditional financial products sales, but were not successful there. They do not understand enough neither blockchain nor decentralized character and advantages of this new industry, so in many cases they actually hurt more than do good.

Also, I do translation and research for fun. I already have a full time job
If you are interested you can read some researches here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3297848.msg34419745#msg34419745
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3320186.msg34680866#msg34680866

But yes, you do bring a fair point. It's hard to catch it. The CEO passed KYC and he attended several key meetings and conferences. However, I had problem with some experts just giving 5 rating with a comment like "good luck" or "strong team!" I feel like they should done more analysis and point out strengths and weakness of the project whether it turned out scam or not.

[hackzang12]

I'm not sure if it's real or not. I hope that they will comeback soon! that's why i don't want to post anything information about me it's cleared that hackers is controlling their Twitter account. I hope this CEO will create new account so that they will update their new website

[jumbo]

Whoa, I didn't expect that. I am not trying to extort anybody.  I am just saying we should be careful next time. Yes, there are other rating sites but I happen to noticed it on ICO bench because I use the website (I mean whether it's lower than other rating agencies, 4 out of 5 is still very high compared to most other ICOs).

That is obviously a great example, why I wouldn't take seriously your analysis. The average score of the running and launched ICOs at the ICOBench as of now is 4.23 (you can easily check it with their API) and it is even higher for the ICOs, that were funded (call it successful). Below average can't be called very high, you are wrong. Real analysts check and prove their numbers, they are not jumping into conclusions.

The same happened to your initial post. IT called wolfs and pointed at witches, but everything turns out just a bloop.

Also, I do translation and research for fun. I already have a full time job

With all due respect, hope it is not in analytics. Or, may be, you do not
If you are interested you can read some researches here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3297848.msg34419745#msg34419745
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3320186.msg34680866#msg34680866[/quote]

I've read them. It won't benefit this discussion to dig into them. Let's say, that I wouldn't really consider showing a substandard work to public, if I were building a professional record. Unless you are in school and learning some basics of of essay compilation or TA and eager just to show off.

But yes, you do bring a fair point. It's hard to catch it. The CEO passed KYC and he attended several key meetings and conferences. However, I had problem with some experts just giving 5 rating with a comment like "good luck" or "strong team!" I feel like they should done more analysis and point out strengths and weakness of the project whether it turned out scam or not.

This part is OK, I agree to the part of the baseless rates (there must be punishment for them in one way or another). But it does not relate to your initial message, which screamed about the very different points.

[Lumada]

I'm not sure if it's real or not. I hope that they will comeback soon! that's why i don't want to post anything information about me it's cleared that hackers is controlling their Twitter account. I hope this CEO will create new account so that they will update their new website

The news went already yesterday and yet they didn't bother to do any announcements, as if they were never trusted and as if no one will get frustrated, they should at least make a move now if they were not into scamming, another successful project run, so sad that even they are trusted they still choose to be greedy.

[Analyst101]

I mean this is what I wrote on my original post.
"There should be an incentive for “experts” to thoroughly research and analysis ICO instead of just saying “good luck.” I am not posting it as a wall of shame. However, we do need to be vigilant and make sure such unfortunate events happen less often, especially when so many “experts” analyzed such ICOs. "

But yes, I understand your criticism. My research should been better. However, even if they had 4.0 or higher, it's hard to find projects with over 40 experts rating on it. Recent ICO I can think of would be Friendz with over 67 experts rating it. I believe there's a difference between few experts rating it high compared to several experts rating it high. But yes, the research should been better and more professionally. Thank you for pointing it out. Also, thank you for your stats. It's quite interesting.

[eddie13]

That is pretty epic if it is for real and I hope you all learn your lesson but I doubt it..

[1C6fV5DtakfKANLJ8GUV7hCaA]

With all this happening, we need  a regulating body for ICOs here in this forum. This cannot happen again. The CEO and team members must and shall abide to the terms and conditions before starting an ICO. I bet that is doable. All we need is the right people, the right team to scan and preview these ICOs before they launch. We need an identity escrow such that whether these scumbags run away with millions of dollars, we can easily track them and get them taken down.

[Jancuki]

try to be patient first until there is an explanation of the related, spertinya related website there is a hack if you see the condition like that.
But I still believe if this project is not scam, because the owner itself is still active in social networking.

[yugyug]

Social media mainstream contributed a lot about the awareness of cryptocurrency worldwide, it is also a good marketing arm to promote your crypto-related business to be fully recognized and to help generative lucrative market shares, this only happen when you have a good standing and credibilty. Otherwise social media is a good tool to screw you up.