Idea for an ICO rating Site?

[Ucy]

What do you think can be done to reduce the level of substandard and fake projects in Crypto World? Most ICO ratings sites aren't reliable.

Some  have suggested allowing the substandard devs and scammers to roam freely in order to teach vulnerable investors some bitter lessons. It is a dangerous ideology/idea i don't subscribe to. 

Do you have any suggestion that should be developed?


Here are some suggestions i think is worth considering:

None of the rating sites I know is up to standard as far as transparency is concerned. Most of the websites are controlled by a person or few individuals.

Crypto World is a bit disorganized at the moment. The current creators of Cryptocurrencies are not ready to let go of their hold on "Decentralized" projects. There are lot of businessmen in Crypto world these days but very few ideological developers.

I think having Decentralized rating sites with good reputation system could solve most of the problem especially the transparency issue. There should be set Standards which new Projects that want to be taken seriously must pass through.
The Standards should be created, debated on and set by the Community. [Community could be made up of Developers of top 100 Cryptocurrencies. The developers have to discuss things first within their various communities. For example: Bitcoin main devs agree within their community which standard should be agreed on.]

Some of my set Standards:
1. Project must be Original and Authentic .. . & possibly Unique .
2. How technically sound the project is % (in percentage)
3. Project viability %
4. Project must be well Decentralized % (how Decentralized?)
5. Whitepaper must be free from plagiarism.
6. Coin should not premined above x percentage.
7. There should be Proof of concept or something.
8. Developer/Developers should be X experienced.
9. How hack proof or secure is the project % (in percentage)
Etc...

* Rating Standards can be divided into different layers as numbered above. Project/ICO would pass through each layer and get rated by algorithm and human evaluators.
*The raters or evaluators should be good algorithms and people with well deserved reputation.
* Human evaluators could be paid in the system Coin.
* System should be designed in such a way that Human evaluators who are found  ignoring, over-rating or under-rating are automatically kicked out or suspended.
* Rating from Algorithm should placed side by side of the rating of human. Example: final rating of a particular ICO/Project could be like this:
Algo Rating = 38%
Human Rating = 42%
* Project that wants to pass through rating should purchase reasonable amounts of the system Coin.

[metall140s]

I will be glad to speak to you about this project.

[TimtheYoutuber]

I would be amazing at rating ICO's. Heres the real problem though


1. MOST people are terrible investors, and the people who won't admit it and doge a finanical advsior buy shit projects. If you only post HQ ico's or projects, the terrible investors will be less willing to invest. Most good ICO's are extremely rare ( 1/500) and most good coins or projects have high evaluations so terrible investors are not interested. They want the cheap hot alts, or the bitconnects.
(Posting good ICO's wont get much traffic because you wont be posting a review every week since only a few ICO's have really shown to be good investments long term )


2. If you post reviews on new and upcoming ICO's you are wasting your time. 99% of ICO's and coins are bad investments, even if they are profitable. ( look at bitconnect ) A good investor knows that a profitable coin doesnt mean it was a good investment. Which is why you shouldnt short a cryptocurrency ( different lesson ) So by posting reviews of shit projects you are wasting your time because there won't be much content in the review since it is a terrible coin.


Summary: ICO review sites suck with content because a good investor will do research on their own. Bad investors will go to the sites to look for investments, but if you are looking to make benificial work and profit for your efffort then it's not a good idea.

[escanor_shy]

Hey. I'm very interested in finding a solution for this problem as well. I think there's value in decentralized review system. Also with regards to reputation, i'm thinking one could also pull in reputation from existing social networks such as twitter, linkedin, bitcointalk. i.e if a review is coming from someone like vitalik for example, it adds more weight compared to others. And something like keybase can already be leveraged to prove identity. With regards to "set standards", i'm not sure if there should be one at all, but a simple 'steam like review' system could work i think with some added UI that highlights and groups reviews into summaries of common points so that people can get a better picture of what other's think.

I'm a developer, have done some blockchain related projects, and would love to discuss this more.

[Kakmakr]

I think the most important thing that was left out there are the verification of the people that are running the ICO. A lot of these ICOs are just a front for a scam, so you will have to sort the good from the bad and verify that the project is legit.

Any investor wants the assurance that they are investing in a actual project and not some "paper" project that does not exist. This is why the SEC wants to regulate the ICO scene, to get rid of these "paper" projects.  I want to put a real identity behind the photo that are posted on their website and I want to Skype with the project team to make sure my large investment is in safe hands. 

[eternalgloom]

I think the most important thing that was left out there are the verification of the people that are running the ICO. A lot of these ICOs are just a front for a scam, so you will have to sort the good from the bad and verify that the project is legit.

Any investor wants the assurance that they are investing in a actual project and not some "paper" project that does not exist. This is why the SEC wants to regulate the ICO scene, to get rid of these "paper" projects.  I want to put a real identity behind the photo that are posted on their website and I want to Skype with the project team to make sure my large investment is in safe hands. 

There's also a problem with ICO's basically getting fake recommendations from either prominent people or companies.
I think that if you were to contact some of the people 'supporting' these ICO's through their LinkedIn, they would deny any affiliation.

I'm also very skeptical about the supposed qualifications some of these advisors have.

[Kemarit]

I think the most important thing that was left out there are the verification of the people that are running the ICO. A lot of these ICOs are just a front for a scam, so you will have to sort the good from the bad and verify that the project is legit.

Any investor wants the assurance that they are investing in a actual project and not some "paper" project that does not exist. This is why the SEC wants to regulate the ICO scene, to get rid of these "paper" projects.  I want to put a real identity behind the photo that are posted on their website and I want to Skype with the project team to make sure my large investment is in safe hands. 

There's also a problem with ICO's basically getting fake recommendations from either prominent people or companies.
I think that if you were to contact some of the people 'supporting' these ICO's through their LinkedIn, they would deny any affiliation.

I'm also very skeptical about the supposed qualifications some of these advisors have.

Yep, fake and even paid reviews. I guess the only solution, which is in our control, is to really do our homework and used our common used before investing on any ICO. You don't need to read reviews online or recommendations, but go the the website directly, read the Whitepaper if you have any doubts then ask questions. If you are not satisfied and the project looks scammy to you then I guess you have to move on and look for another project to invest.

[harizen]

I think the most important thing that was left out there are the verification of the people that are running the ICO. A lot of these ICOs are just a front for a scam, so you will have to sort the good from the bad and verify that the project is legit.

Any investor wants the assurance that they are investing in a actual project and not some "paper" project that does not exist. This is why the SEC wants to regulate the ICO scene, to get rid of these "paper" projects.  I want to put a real identity behind the photo that are posted on their website and I want to Skype with the project team to make sure my large investment is in safe hands. 

That's why Im seeing SEC regulations as an advantage although it will really affect some things that's why we here in crypto world.

Anyways there are already ICO ratings site on which the verification is included in the details of the project. Somehow it can be a good reference for investors but still we can't erase the fact that there is a possibility that team verification is also a rigged. So for me, if the team's verification passed to at least several numbers of ICO Ratings site then we can say that's legit because Im sure no project will spend money to lots of ICO rating sites to rigged their details unless they are really aggressive to do so. Some of the ICO rating sites Im sure is protecting their reputation too so I believed there's no way they will just say "PASSED" or "VERIFIED" about the status of team 's verification.

[Jaycee99]

I would that, for a fact that knowing legit ICO is getting the chances of 0% because it is a scam which scamers are doing everything to make there ICO legit and here are my facts

1. They will create fake identity(that is very common).

2. They will and may create its(Iam refering to the own ICO's team) portfolios.

~They might create it a month ago before the ICO started working.
~They may seek Ideas here on how to see or stop scammers.

3. They will here good and great campaign managers to get more people to work for them when it comes to endorsements.

---------

I just saw a post about a certain site or list that would rate ICOs still who know one of them is not legit.

Now for me when looking for a good project I look to search for google to read everything about the ICO everyone.

Here are my simple ideas to an project, the project should be really high tech which can identify fake ICO's Hoping to make and create one of the ideas about knowing whether the ICOs is fake or legit.

[KingScorpio]

I would be amazing at rating ICO's. Heres the real problem though


1. MOST people are terrible investors, and the people who won't admit it and doge a finanical advsior buy shit projects. If you only post HQ ico's or projects, the terrible investors will be less willing to invest. Most good ICO's are extremely rare ( 1/500) and most good coins or projects have high evaluations so terrible investors are not interested. They want the cheap hot alts, or the bitconnects.
(Posting good ICO's wont get much traffic because you wont be posting a review every week since only a few ICO's have really shown to be good investments long term )


2. If you post reviews on new and upcoming ICO's you are wasting your time. 99% of ICO's and coins are bad investments, even if they are profitable. ( look at bitconnect ) A good investor knows that a profitable coin doesnt mean it was a good investment. Which is why you shouldnt short a cryptocurrency ( different lesson ) So by posting reviews of shit projects you are wasting your time because there won't be much content in the review since it is a terrible coin.


Summary: ICO review sites suck with content because a good investor will do research on their own. Bad investors will go to the sites to look for investments, but if you are looking to make benificial work and profit for your efffort then it's not a good idea.

ratins in financial systems are 100% always somehow biased. because power effects asymetrically, the more power someone gets the better he can improve the quality of his institution, if you give someone no power he cant develop the best institution even if he is the most intelligent person in the world.
because the needed work is undoable by a single person, you will in the end, end up running a corrupt rating system that is biased towards something.

so you should better play with open card. like the islamic halal rating does.

[Slow death]

this is a very complex problem, but it may be possible to minimize it. If you create a site where you focus on evaluating team members and their past and competence.

For example:

1 - Team members [checked, more details see here]
2 - Past of the Team members [checked, more details see here]
3 - Competence of the Team members [very weak competence, more details see here]

then you could talk about the project itself:

- if the idea is good
- if the project is viable

If you can show people that the projects you evaluated are good projects then you will have a good reputation in the community

[metall140s]

Reputation is the keyword here.

[Ucy]

I would be amazing at rating ICO's. Heres the real problem though


1. MOST people are terrible investors, and the people who won't admit it and doge a finanical advsior buy shit projects. If you only post HQ ico's or projects, the terrible investors will be less willing to invest. Most good ICO's are extremely rare ( 1/500) and most good coins or projects have high evaluations so terrible investors are not interested. They want the cheap hot alts, or the bitconnects.
(Posting good ICO's wont get much traffic because you wont be posting a review every week since only a few ICO's have really shown to be good investments long term )


2. If you post reviews on new and upcoming ICO's you are wasting your time. 99% of ICO's and coins are bad investments, even if they are profitable. ( look at bitconnect ) A good investor knows that a profitable coin doesnt mean it was a good investment. Which is why you shouldnt short a cryptocurrency ( different lesson ) So by posting reviews of shit projects you are wasting your time because there won't be much content in the review since it is a terrible coin.


Summary: ICO review sites suck with content because a good investor will do research on their own. Bad investors will go to the sites to look for investments, but if you are looking to make benificial work and profit for your efffort then it's not a good idea.

(Posting good ICO's wont get much traffic because you wont be posting a review every week since only a few ICO's have really shown to be good investments long term )

Everything has to be reviewed,(every single ico on the Internet if possible) including those that are of extremely low quality.
All that matters is that the bad ones will rank below on the ICO rank list

[Andy Smith]

Make a website for investors, where projects will be evaluated not by people and bots, but by real investors.

[stomachgrowls]

Those ideas being mentioned are indeed good but the major things I would like to say is that;

"A certain ICO rating site shouldn't really be easily blinded by those project who do tend up to pay some money just to list them up and do give out excellent reviews"

If this thing can be sustained or retained by most rating sites together with the things mentioned above then I would say this is really a worthy site to use as a preference.

[Honour423]

There are so many ICOs I can’t imagine trying to cover all of them and having a standardized rating system. In addition, you need to offer it in several languages.

[kickbit]

I thought ICOs are not such popular now. Bear market and stuff you know

You don't need to evaluate all of them, just need to find 1-2 you believe in. That's IMO

Most of them are trash and scam, btw, started following these guys: https://shitcoinoffering.com/
They call it what it is

[igor.ko]

I definitely support this idea, especially considering how many "shitcoin" offerings there are.

[metall140s]

There are so many ICOs I can’t imagine trying to cover all of them and having a standardized rating system. In addition, you need to offer it in several languages.

But if you are able to do it, it is quete profitable.

[igor.ko]

There are so many ICOs I can’t imagine trying to cover all of them and having a standardized rating system. In addition, you need to offer it in several languages.

Yeah I agree, but we'll have to take it step by step. Just developing a standardized rating system would take time... implementing everything else and putting it all together will be even harder. I hope someone will get on it soon though