ICO Market Weekly Review: $57M raised

[jostorres]

If we keep seeing this figures, some investors or new investors will just keep getting annoyed at the way these projects do raise fund and yet they still come up with a shit project that fails investors, for some projects to have raised this kind of huge amount, honestly they have no reason to fail because that money is not a play.

The money that one project do raise alone is more than enough to make 10 projects successful, and we have actually had many ICO raised more than this in the past and which is more than enough for them to establish a very good project that even when they dump the coin in the market, the product will still speak and make the value keep rising just like bitcoin is doing, they have dumped bitcoin several times, but yet it keeps rising.

[el kaka22]

ICOBench has been in operation for a long time and they do not need to be paid by the companies to give them a good rating, they are literally making money themselves by being legit and objective. Obviously, they are giving high grades to most of them because you have to see something bad about the project before you can give them a bad grade and most of these usually go bad after the ICO not beforehand so they look great during the funding process.

However, if you take just the funding parts and data into consideration instead of looking at the ratings than you will see a difference in how much funding they are getting and how much it used to get and compare the hype. Right now, it is not doing too well, its still not dead as people imagine it is but its dying for sure.

[passwordnow]

...but the quality of projects has rounded at 4.0.

What does this mean? That the quality of projects have decreased? And whose standard is it based? Is it coming from your platform alone?

I have also the same question but their metrics and statistics must be from 0-10. So overall the rating didn't even reached the half of it which is 10 in ratings.
It's obvious that many ICO doesn't have anything to show anymore and as for the IEO, there's plenty of them that are conducting it right now but same as ICO, only few of them will emerge.

That has always been the pattern ever since the ICO market became so crowded and full of scams and mediocre projects. And although IEO has made the market a little bit better, it still carried with it the dirt from the polluted ICO market. As expected, many are going to fail.

If their rating is 0-10 and the average is 4, that could mean that the quality of projects has decreased significantly or the projects under review of their site have stopped paying or buying higher ratings. At the end of the day, ratings do not necessarily reflect the quality of the projects. There have been highly rated projects that did not even hit their soft caps.

Right!
They have similarities with ICO and the abusers and scammers who create useless projects can still use the IEO to scam people. Making their project look like the best but it's more of a crap project.
Yes, the quality of projects has decreased. We will see by the end of the year on how many projects through IEO became successful unlike few years ago with ICO, many succeed.

[VDraci]

This week the ICO & IEO market has outperformed the average week in the summertime. However, it has raised $57M that is still four times lower in comparison with the previous week.

1. Only six projects have raised $293M but the quality of projects has rounded at 4.0.
2. Blockstack ICO has raised 82% of overall funds raised during this week
3. The projects FRED Energy and Mindsync obtained the highest ratings of 4.9 and 4.7 respectively

Download Weekly Review (PDF): http://bit.ly/306mrM1

Well this result is for those who belief in ICO rating websites, they aren't in my agenda because they are very misleading if care is not taken and moreover how are we going to know if its legit, like no payment received to rank up the ratings? the answer is no way to know