All rating platforms are shit!?

[altsMlk]

All rating sites are not shits. and all ICO ratings are not accurate as always. I have seen few scams were in top notch of rating sites (denaro).  If an ico program can spent enough money, they can get highest rating. Thats the fact behind rating sites. I use ratings as one of main factor while researching about icos. But not a "must be" factor.

[1715150339]

1715150339

[1715150339]

1715150339

[1715150339]

1715150339

[Swenna]

I don't think all rating platforms are shit. After all, no one can foretell how successful a project or an ICO may become, even the investors. ICO's success depends on a lot of factors especially once it enters the market, however, investors and experts' views may also be limited to some technical analysis and readings. In any case, I still trust some of the rating platforms such as ICOrating, not because of their ratings or anything but because of the details provided especially in terms of the amount raised by a project. Although, you can just do your own research and compare it to some reviews in different rating platforms to widen your views and garner other's opinion about a project.

[Inspector2580]

I feel your pain man. Many of those rating sites are nonsense. Imagine a project my buddy was doing it's bounty turned out to be a scam after he had earlier seen the ratings for the project to be high on a popular rating site. After the project turned out to be a scam, he went back n saw the rating has been reduced.

What should investor do with such service?

[samarabtc]

I think they are doing their duty. But sometimes they are not providing the actual rating. It decreases their popularity. That’s why some peoples are says they are shit.

[secondhandlark5]

It is better to make a comparison between all the rating platform. Nowadays there are a lots of reviewers, websites and indicators who can help to know of a project is interesting or not to invest.

[marinakofoleva]

And who told you that they show an objective point of view??? No, these sites work and earn on traffic, on advertising on their site. They don't care what idea carries a particular post on the site. For them, it's just content that needs to be replenished daily on the site. A ratings cheating do bots

[Mhd-Bobbi]

"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.

I agree with your statement.
I assume that not all ratings are dirty. there is an honest rating. so check carefully. there are some coins that use it a lot to show their honesty. those who use coins many of them choose coins that many devotees. it's the highest score.

[thesmallgod]

that is the reason to do research for yourself. do not just jump into conclusion base on what you read on listing platform. some top ICO listing perform do not list for free. they are being partronize by ICO company to list their ICO on their site. there are agreement which both party will need to fulfil and that is the reason why you see favourism in ico listing sites. forget about rating, they are being bought. if I want to get high review plus good rating on my ICO i will pay listing site good sum of money to get it done.

[delarossa]

I think rating is a first impression for us when first look at the project. Because of the high rating of the average project has a high criteria. The judge of a project is usually the leading experts, so they certainly know how worthy the project they are worth.

[Underw00d]

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?

I think you are right in many respects, By the fact that most rating agencies want to earn themselves extra money and are therefore ready to do not quite objective assessments.

[Merdeop]

I fully support the author's opinion. It seems to me that a controlling structure will be made soon. Because there's too much cheating around the ICO. I think someone should definitely do it. This will make life easier for investors and bounty-hunters.

[clololck]

Friends, are you a victim? Your language is sharp. I very much agree. I think the rating platform is not transparent. They may have insider trading. So I don't want to believe it.

[johstacy]

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.

Yes, there is some truth in your words. Thanks for the link.

I'm looking at the ratings. Of course, the rating doesn't say that in a month you will get a lot of money. In the rating, you see the analysis of the project and the potential. I have not seen successful projects with a rating of 2/10. The rating doesn't predict the price on the market, so with the help of the rating, you cannot predict the future.
In the code can find and not fix the vulnerability, the project can be attacked by hackers, perhaps someone from the team will be a fraud. Rating is an analysis, sometimes erroneous and not deep, but it is not 100% indicator of ToTheMoon.

[jerowacik]

There is a complete lack of a reliable set of criteria for the evaluation of new platforms. You should choose your own criteria to rate the project, completeness, accessibility of information.

[AUruHM]

The most of platforms have paid reviews. I know one only website with the ratings which I think are correct. It's icodrops. I don't trust all other. Because of I see many times wrong or inflated rating. And I read about "experts" from this platform as paid human

[ukloon]

These ICO ratings are useful as a guide but should be taken as gospel. It is like a quick overview instead of going through the whitepaper, but of course if it does spark an interest then study the whitepaper in full prior to investing.

[Muhammad Muneeb]

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?

why do u depend on rating platform do your own research about the project and the team behind it.. usually  icos pay to platforms to drop them in good rating.. there was an ico some months ago by the name of clout platform their concept was to do the independent evaluation of the ico .. check them out if they are still doing the evaluation of the projects and its team

[X-avier]

Probably so, almost every rating platform was noticed in its incompetence, which means that all of them also love money and do not refuse them when they are offered a bribe for high appraisal. Therefore, I think it is foolish to blindly believe only rating platforms, include your own analysis and this will give you more understanding about the project in which you want to invest.

[charlie137]

its always better to do your own research, and don't forget that things could change from day to day. just like the market

[Hektur]

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?

If you do not trust these sites (platforms) simply dont use it. Do research on your own, if you know how to do it