Would you participate in new project if it is not listed in ICO rating websites?

[tabas]

Before it was appreciated to take some suggestions from ICO rating websites but I don't think they are plausible these days. Because many of them can do paid reviews which is unreliable, they can give good reviews to crap projects as long as they will pay the fee they ask.

[Altero]

Before it was appreciated to take some suggestions from ICO rating websites but I don't think they are plausible these days. Because many of them can do paid reviews which is unreliable, they can give good reviews to crap projects as long as they will pay the fee they ask.

It is already been happening in the new projects and I don't care of the rating is low at least I've found it reliable than considering those high rating but there is no guarantee of being a reputable one. But we can't deny that investors will mostly look into high rating projects and I don't know if they still considering those ratings today since they know about paid reviews.

[tabas]

Before it was appreciated to take some suggestions from ICO rating websites but I don't think they are plausible these days. Because many of them can do paid reviews which is unreliable, they can give good reviews to crap projects as long as they will pay the fee they ask.

It is already been happening in the new projects and I don't care of the rating is low at least I've found it reliable than considering those high rating but there is no guarantee of being a reputable one. But we can't deny that investors will mostly look into high rating projects and I don't know if they still considering those ratings today since they know about paid reviews.

Some newbies probably are considering those reviews if they are looking for one. We have our own way of determining the good factor of an project but these days are different now from before. Well, before those reviews are very encouraging knowing that they really are good projects but today, they aren't anymore.

[Red-Apple]

at first (meaning the first days or may first 2 or 3 weeks) when the ICO listing/rating websites were created they were honest and were revealing the most obvious scams to get the popularity they wanted. then as they gained that popularity and their website grew in traffic and rank they started demanding money from the very same scam projects to pay them to lie for them and basically advertise them as "trusted" and that is exactly what they did. because in the end the whole purpose of creating such websites was to make money and the scammers always pay the best bribes if it means they could scam more people and earn more as the result.

[bitcoindusts]

For me it doesn’t matter if it is listed or not as long as I know the project itself and the developers already have credibility in handling the said project. You know there are developers that are already known to be handling successful projects in the past. Besides, ICO ratings is not that reliable, we all know why and even if the project is listed, having high ratings does not guarantee that the project is not a scam but, nevertheless, I don’t see why a good project would refuse to be listed in ICO sites. First, that will a plus popularity and not to deny that there are investors that really consider listing to be a big deal.

[masterusd]

For me it doesn’t matter if it is listed or not as long as I know the project itself and the developers already have credibility in handling the said project. You know there are developers that are already known to be handling successful projects in the past. Besides, ICO ratings is not that reliable, we all know why and even if the project is listed, having high ratings does not guarantee that the project is not a scam but, nevertheless, I don’t see why a good project would refuse to be listed in ICO sites. First, that will a plus popularity and not to deny that there are investors that really consider listing to be a big deal.

I agree with you, but there few points must be consider, some new projects do not include known developers handling successful projects in the past, but i think known advisors with the team can help the projects.

[clipto]

Without any doubt, because all those rating websites can be paid and the more you pay, the better rating you are going to get. Make you own research and never take those ratings into consideration, because it is a lie.

[lab rat hoax]

Honestly ico rating websites doesn’t mean anything to me.. So i actually don’t trust anything these days. If the project is very good and if the team includes well known reliable persons i could think to invest in.

[terencio]

ICO rating website does not a guarantee that the project will be successful, it consider one the gauge but its only an opinion. The most reliable source is your own research. It's your investment, so you have to protect it.

[masterusd]

Honestly ico rating websites doesn’t mean anything to me.. So i actually don’t trust anything these days. If the project is very good and if the team includes well known reliable persons i could think to invest in.

But what if the team behind the project is unknown, i think this not mean the project is scam.

[bigcash2011]

Absolutely, if the project and the team is good then why not, ico websites are not the parameter to invest, personally i have invested in more non hyped icos than the listed one's.

[Kwansimaa]

Most ICO projects do not apply for rating at ICO rating websites off late since many project managers have realized these ICO rating websites don't give exact ratings and sometimes some are paid to rate some projects high and due to that investors do not rely on ICO rating websites before making any decision. So if per my research I find out the project is good participating in but cannot be found on any rating website, I will still participate and hope for the best.

[sheenaedago]

Without any doubt, because all those rating websites can be paid and the more you pay, the better rating you are going to get. Make you own research and never take those ratings into consideration, because it is a lie.

Exactly there's no honest ratings coming from so called legit sources, and for me what's important is you understand the project platforms. Before participation, dig deeper and scrutinize what's behind a certain ico then you decide after to whom to trust with.

[sherenikaw]

The first thing to implement when going to participate in a certain new project is analyzing their team and project whether it is promising or not, having a real product, and trust enough or not. team with a good track record will be more trusted than only those are on the website rating score. So far, ICO ratings may give fake conditions and it doesn't guarantee that the projects are exactly legit. So, analyze more and do deeper research in order to know whether the project is trusted and promising or not.

[masterusd]

The first thing to implement when going to participate in a certain new project is analyzing their team and project whether it is promising or not, having a real product, and trust enough or not. team with a good track record will be more trusted than only those are on the website rating score. So far, ICO ratings may give fake conditions and it doesn't guarantee that the projects are exactly legit. So, analyze more and do deeper research in order to know whether the project is trusted and promising or not.

But what if the investors are new in the markets, new investors may do not have experience to do research or analysing.
What you suggest?

[shadowdio]

Listed or not, the more important to me is the project, I don't trust the ICO rating because some of ICO rating websites are fake. I've heard that if you pay high to them you get perfect score or perfect rating, that's not good if you rely on their ICO rating possible some of their perfect rating ICO is a scam.

[masterusd]

Listed or not, the more important to me is the project, I don't trust the ICO rating because some of ICO rating websites are fake. I've heard that if you pay high to them you get perfect score or perfect rating, that's not good if you rely on their ICO rating possible some of their perfect rating ICO is a scam.

This is true pay more get more rating, but some see this websites is useful.

[airdropan]

I don't really mind if the project not listed on ICO website rating. The important thing isn't only that. If the team good , the project is real and their community quite strong i would join with no doubt. Even web rating can give you false rating too

[aioc]

Nowadays there are many projects, it is not easy to judge on new project, good or not, some people think the ico rating websites may help to take your decision, others think this ICO rating websites provide fake rating due to new project can pay fees to this ICO websites and get high rating.
SO, If you find good project, is it important to you this new good project should be listed in ICO rating websites?

Appreciate your participation

People should stop looking in ICOI rating sites, soon there will be no more rating sites, because they are ruining the crowdfunding by giving good rating to dubious and fake projects, people should just look on the potential of the coin in the market and don't rely on these scam ICO rating sites.

[Little Mouse]

ICO rating websites are biased these days and there's no way of finding a good project through them. I try to analyze by myself whatever I can, and if I found the project bounty is managed by a good manager, I wouldn't hesitate to participate.