All rating platforms are shit!?

[De_nis]

Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!

What do you think?

[hasimkamal]

"All rating platforms are shit" it is not true always. Sometimes rated coins have showed their values. Sometimes they don't perform as it should be. One should not follow the rating only. Other associated considerations should be taken before investing.

[upekhaanthony]

I don't think all rating platform are shit. But I can some of them are actually helping scammer for money. Recently one ICO failed and the ICO team didn't refund the funds. Before ICO failed, the rating was 4.8/5(Highly recommended ICO), and after failing the ICO they immediately change the rating as 2/5(not recommended ICO). We need some irreversible blockchain powered platform to count the rating. Otherwise, some of them are going spread scams.

[NIuok]

Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!

What do you think?

Are you being deceived by the platform? To be honest ICO I do not want to participate. Because I do not think the rating company is transparent, I do not choose to participate in ICO.

[puzzling_rvat]

I use only icobench. But I clearly realize that they can only evaluate the profile, the team and the relevance of the product. By and large this is a mechanical evaluation, reinforced with general information, which can be complete nonsense.
One must understand that any words of experts can not serve as a call to action. Personally, I noticed that ICO with rating 3 to 4 show a better result than with 4,5+

[richan]

Ratings platforms are just doing their jobs for commenting on an ICO with their whitepaper and what they see in a project. If the project to meet the need as has been publish in their whitepaper, I don't think the rating platform should be blame.

[bakery506]

Some platforms are real, but there is more or less a relationship between the rating platform and the project team!
 

[iconoclast]

Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!

What do you think?

The rating platforms do not perform due diligence, they merely give a rating of the ICO based on the information provided by the company. Sometimes that is rating by a bunch of so called experts and other times it is just based on votes by investors. Before you invest your money you should thoroughly go over the information about the project and try to confirm that information from reputable third party sources.

[Musstang]

Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!

What do you think?

Ratings do not guarantee good luck. The mechanism that will give a guarantee to come up with probably vryatli it turns out. But still a landmark is needed and better than the ratings so far there is nothing.

[adarwis]

Do you mean the ICO rating? Well I think that's not all true, some ICO rating is even very good in their riview and also there are some of them who just want to profit from every ICO, with just a bit of ethereum or Bitcoin they change the rating from ICO with business purpose albeit with a bit of a fool

[BitcoinHodler]

Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally!

it is interesting that you only see "deception" because price has gone down! and you were closing your eyes on the same "deception" that also existed while price was going up.
it is a simply process pump AND dump.

I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!

i don't really understand how this relates to rating platforms but as for mechanism, i don't see any need for it. the "honest projects" will survive and as long as they are actually doing something and not just advertising it, they will grow more even if in short term they get pumped and dumped.

[chenhaonan]

Most of the rating platforms do have a lot of false information. I think they are charging for the interests of some project parties! But there are still many good platforms, at least they make it easier to record bets!

[cryqtovn83]

many of them are paid service and can't use their rating to invest into an ico.
such as https://www.coinschedule.com/ almost icos have similar rating event scam one as you can check in past ico also have 3 stars

[saganpav]

Too much deception around, investor confidence starts to decline and the market reacts naturally! I think we need some mechanism to protect honest projects, some kind of association in which guarantees the reputation of the project, because all rating platforms are shit!

What do you think?

Yes, I totally agree with you, rating platforms are really a shit. I have long been convinced of this. You never have to rely on such rating sites. You need to do the project analysis yourself and trust yourself only!

[sinduarianto]

indeed many projects now look good only with rating only, but not as we imagine many of them are deceiving and when there is a market about the tokens they make.

[thresher]

Almost all are shit. There are actually some raters who work dilligently to get that data but finding the true rater is a pain in the arse. That's why I prefer to do my own research instead of trusting a ranker. It shall come as no surprise to know that I mostly disagree with most raters.

[siggy]

If you want to become an investor, you should forget about most of the ratings, because they also can't predict  with high accuracy project's profitabilty.

[sateyaam]

I really agree with you, too many scams everywhere and I also think we need some mechanisms to protect honest projects, but I think it's not easy to implement this, because I'm sure there are many new and growing fraud models currently.

[Vilianms]

I think you are a smart person. Rating agencies must also survive. As long as there is a demand for survival, there are natural industry rules. So I do not believe in rating agencies either. I think the risk of ICO is here. Real rating agencies are hard to survive.

[Mrs Troll]

I always say in such cases that the only useful rating is something like TOP7 ICO table https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12bJmLfCf02VIrBg4DPrTeR_hqGE6V5dorgMglPUOwSA/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0 So-called "voice of crowd bloggers/influencers "still works well. You can not trust one site/man, you can not trust even 2-3 of them, but if most of them say that NEX and Quarkchain are top projects this could be the truth with very high chances.