Why can not I trust ICO-ratings?

[Nikolyovin]

I had suspicions that many websites that issue IKO ratings are left, but that's it! One of the leading such sites turned out to be a pyramidal-MLM-system of corruption!

ICObench.com - how to become an expert and earn from $ 2000 a month?

For greedy money or poor, this post is a guide to action. For companies wishing to enter the ICO - the methodology of deception. And for investors suffering from a scam, it's time to think.

So. In the courtyard of August 2017. Purely from sporting considerations and to maintain an analytical grasp - I, like many at that time delved into the sphere of the blockbuster: I watched the market, analyzed the possibilities and estimated the scope of future earnings with the violent growth of the bitcoin rate. And after a long enough time to search for an analytical site, I stopped my gaze on only the emerging project - ICObench. At that time it was a simple, and somewhat inconvenient, data warehouse for the ICO, where occasionally some estimates of unknown names appeared. In the test mode, I created the first account (I always do this - even here, on Facebook, the "test" page first appeared). But my eyes and analytical mind first pierced the projects that were glaring at impudence, in which almost every page was written "we do not refund money, 50% of the organizers, we can not cipher - therefore we do not give guarantees for the project!", And then no less amazing his maximum marks.

I want to note that at that time experts ("appraisers") did not need to give comments and explanations to their assessments.

As a person who has a bearing on the financial and technical development of projects (including the protection of projects in state structures and banks), it all seemed like a wild pockmark and the divorce of poor or poorly educated people in the financial sector. And, in order to defeat the newly-minted CEO (CEO) with a sledgehammer of their own incompetence - I ran to register a real account in the ICObench system on my own behalf.

After successfully obtaining the status of an "expert" (for a couple of hours), I set to work. First of all, I contacted the administration with the purpose of proposing to make some changes to the rules for the "experts" and the site's search engine. To my surprise - the proposals were accepted and after some time they successfully earned. After that, I began to gain weight points in the system almost instantly.

I want to note that the weight of the expert's rating in the system was influenced by several points: the number of ratings left, the time registered in the system as an expert, the experience of participating in other ico, participating in crypt conferences and helping to develop the ICObench project. And the more your overall rating - the more you influence the evaluation of the project (understand - what am I getting at?).

In the first weeks, the review of the new ICO took me a few days. With an understanding of all possible documents - I left estimations carefully choosing words. But I was infuriated that some "experts" did not leave a word, they have a higher rating in the system than I do. Competition - there is competition. And after a little correspondence with ICObench, new rules were introduced - a mandatory written evaluation of the project. After that, the reviews I left earlier added enough "mana" to skip the evaluation of the project from 4.5 to 3.8 points. And with some other rating experts in friends - could bring down the score down to 2.2 points, if the project in our opinion turned out to be full zashvarom or divorce.

But, at some point, I began to receive letters from those very unsatisfied CEO estimates, with requests to "review the assessment," "talk on Skype" and even "fly to Spain to chat." By me, such obsessive evaluations of communication are regarded as a threat - and in this desire I refused to ignore.

The matter is that in the ICObench system, any previously left estimate can be changed, and the commentary is supplemented or deleted. Most often, such requests came from projects. And although I have not been in "experts" for a long time and I have nothing to do with ICObench - requests to influence the evaluation are still being received.

And now about the most important thing - about earnings. How much does it cost to write a review on ICObench, if you are registered in the system as an "expert"? On the exact amount I can not say. But in the tobacco lobby, I was told the following figures: From $ 300 for the change in the evaluation of the initial expert. From $ 500 for an average assessment with a small summary of the project. And from $ 700 for a good evaluation with an excellent, detailed resume. (initial-medium-excellent - this is the weight of the voice of the "expert" in the system). This as for real characters.

But there are robots (clones) in the system. These registered and supposedly real "experts" are created solely for the purpose of selling ratings. Most often these are couples who got wind of the "Urvi dough" and "quick money" on the ratings of friends and family. Clones can be bought (with a page in FB and LinkedIn) or created by yourself. And through VPN quietly evaluate projects with prepaid for wholesale.

How to search for clients? It's simple. You can send a personal message to the newly made ICO directors at Linkedin or on the same FB with the advertisement of their services. Or, leaving angry comments with poor ratings on ICObench - wait until they contact you. They say that forums also do a good job of finding customers.

And now about me. And here everything is simple - I do not want to take part in this farce. This kitsch, the loony guy and the divorce me is already too annoying. Before that, back in December of last year, I was preparing an article about such frauds in the crypt and ratings area, but did not publish it, because a) ICObench promised to fix the situation, since such infa would have affected their status b) it was not it is interesting to throw shit.

Perhaps, here I will finish. I'm interested in the crypt sphere, but because 95% of all projects are scum (the remaining 5% are purely technological projects) - I do not want to have anything in common with existing ratings. Moreover, I do not accept companies that support the shadow sector, the sphere of fraud and deception, which are not registered anywhere and do not pay taxes anywhere, working as a bandit "on trust", Russian hiding behind an English-speaking mask and deleting projects that are unfavorable for their own rating (I'm talking about ICObench now). Recently - I hoped for the best, but today I'm far from this and this approach is not accepted.

And as a summary of my advice for each ICO and investor - do not be tempted by ratings and boycott such resources. And if you do not believe me - go and try it yourself!

Source - http://telegra.ph/Pochemu-nelzya-doveryat-ICO-rejtingam-04-26
The original post on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/v.udartsev/posts/10215551880491186

[kritiana008]

I support the idea of analyzing and choosing projects by yourself only. Nobody knows the truth and only your predicted trends will help you to make the right decision which will minimize losses and maximize profit.

[AfterTheFork]

 ICOs are one of the riskiest ventures there are in he crypto market. with high loss chances. Investing in them needs thorough research and belief in the quality of the project yo are investing in. otherwise one is headed the loss making direction, which is really not the reason why we are here. some of these ICOs are ust as good and goes ahead to become valuable but not all

[warwar]

I support the idea of analyzing and choosing projects by yourself only. Nobody knows the truth and only your predicted trends will help you to make the right decision which will minimize losses and maximize profit.

Well way back a year a go which the forum is clean and just very informative the ico rating sort of they tend to always gives you right information but right now mostly of it is those ico rating sites is being paid by those Team of the ICO to put their token on their website and rate it high sort of it is a good token that is the happening right now so i do agree on you that it is good choice if you analyze by your self the ICO

[makishart]

I support the idea of analyzing and choosing projects by yourself only. Nobody knows the truth and only your predicted trends will help you to make the right decision which will minimize losses and maximize profit.

Well way back a year a go which the forum is clean and just very informative the ico rating sort of they tend to always gives you right information but right now mostly of it is those ico rating sites is being paid by those Team of the ICO to put their token on their website and rate it high sort of it is a good token that is the happening right now so i do agree on you that it is good choice if you analyze by your self the ICO

There was a lot of thief have created such a scammy ico rating site for the marketing purpose only and it can't be tolerated. A high rating in the ico rating site can't be trusted and i have seen someone has created a medium post about that. DYOR is always become the best choice to determine how good the ico is.

[Nalbo]

You should not blindly trust any such ico benchmarking websites as any of them can be bought by money.
But what we shouldn't forget is they are also a source to reference links to the project's components, the team, their so called affiliates and partners and a links to various ways to prove them.

[iconoclast]

I have always considered ICO Rating as completely worthless. No professional investor is going to place any stock in a ratings system that is often little better than a repetition of existing public information with rating numbers pulled out of someones ass. I have on many occassions exposed obvious fradulent ICO's that had high ICO rating from multiple sites. In each case even the most cursory due dilligence would have exposed the fraud. Now that it has been exposed that they regularly sell high ratings you can view them as little better than paid accessories to fraud.

[khufuking]

I do not think that any real investor will ever gonna look into any rating sites, the rating is manipulated and paid of most of time it is not a rocket science to realize this, I am not a big investor and I never visited an ICO rating site for advice or rating I do not even take the information they provide as an 100% accurate information .

[Oniko]

I think that at the start of their ideas, everyone had good goals. Now there are very few ICO rating sites that give a reliable estimate.

I believe a little bit about the ICOBOX service

[dimonstration]

I think that at the start of their ideas, everyone had good goals. Now there are very few ICO rating sites that give a reliable estimate.

I believe a little bit about the ICOBOX service

ICO rating are giving an information about the rate of on going and coming ICO's but it's definitely not 100% real because mostly giving an ICO rating is fake or being manipulated through paid. It's better to not make a decision base on ICO ratings because it's too risky.

[kelamiyoui]

From my point of view it is stupid mistake to trust such ratings because every expert has his own opinion and methods for analyzing. I am sure that you should do it by your own.

[BTC2u]

ICO ratings are hard to make and maybe bias is some ways. not all ICO ratings are bad especially if they do not profit from it but sometimes really hard to rate an ICO as too many factors to consider. anyways, its up to each of us to do due diligence with our investments.

[trns.txt]

Well way back a year a go which the forum is clean and just very informative the ico rating sort of they tend to always gives you right information but right now mostly of it is those ico rating sites is being paid by those Team of the ICO to put their token on their website and rate it high sort of it is a good token that is the happening right now so i do agree on you that it is good choice if you analyze by your self the ICO

Yeah, unfortunately many ICO ratings are paid by the team of ICO project right now. It makes difficult to see which ICOs have the objective rates. That's why to choose ICO for investment or for bounty, I prefer to provide my own research. I analyze the project info, its legality, team member, and so on myself.   

[Brittanythanh]

ICO rankings or quality assessments are just references. A good ICO must be based on a number of factors, moreover, the acceptance of the community. Sometimes good ICOs that the community does not accept are still a failure

[imgoinforbitcoin]

ICO  rating sites are just human controlled sites with some peoples opinion attached to them, there is nothing special about them and most of the time they arent as accurate as we would like, some also operate under influence and might ive inaccurate projections about a coin.  they may be used as a point of refference but not really as a decision making pointer

[rashio]

ICO-ratings just identify the data or information of the ICO project. It not really determines which one is the best ICO. You should analyze yourself to find the ICO that meets with your expectation. For me, it only shows a general info of an ICO.       

[reggram]

There are many scams in the ICO. They are also the source of reference project components, teams, links to affiliates and partners, and links to various proofs. Most ICO ratings are fake or paid for. So we can't take the information they provide as 100% accurate information.

[PlayChip]

In our experience we had felt ICO Bench to be one of the more trustworthy sites, namely as it is free to list there.

However, we learned early on that things weren't quite as they seem. When contacting ICO Bench, they encouraged us to purchase the premium packages to make our project more 'visible' to experts, but that experts rated projects independently and in their own time.

In the meantime we received many offers to get positive expert ratings from third party marketers via Telegram.

Well, after checking the reviews of some of our competitors it soon became clear that something was up. Competitors with inferior products to us were receiving 5/5/5 with no comment whatsoever. We then received a negative review from a leading ICO 'expert' criticising us for very small elements and other things that were clearly available on our token offering document and our ICO home page. He had clearly not viewed either before leaving his rating, and had granted 5/5/5 reviews to our competitors without comment.

Obviously there is no way of knowing what exactly has gone on here, but it is a good indication of how this industry works in these still early stages.

[PlayChip]

And I do agree with previous comments that doing one's own DD is a MUST!

While there are definitely well-informed people in crypto and have a good idea of marketing, TA and actual blockchain knowledge, the truth is that no one KNOWS what is going to happen in this market, that's why it's rather exciting.

I recommend picking projects with genuine use case and have a personal appeal to you. Verify their staff so you know they are genuine (easy in the case of reverse-ICOs such as the PlayChip! www.playchip.global) and put some money in, and forget about it for a couple of years.

In a couple of years time the genuine ICOs of today will be thriving - you just have to know how to pick them

[biogesic]

I agreed, better do your own analysis. Much better is to gain friends you can work together with in doing the same thing.