The Authenticity of ICO Ratings – Hacker Noon

The ICO-market is growing rapidly. So, too, is the number of resources that provide information about it. Many of these crypto-media offer users the option of tracking ICO ratings. In addition, they post ratings, not only for the ICO projects, but also for blockchain conferences, advisors in the field, listings, and other media resources.

So just who it is that compiles all these ratings?

Perhaps more importantly, should we believe them?

Let’s contemplate the question.

Can you trust ratings?

Various ICO rating platforms offer investors a review of the ICO before investing in its resources. Some have established a solid reputation along with a certain ‘prestige.’ Therefore crypto-investors are prone to believe them unconditionally. They then proceed to make choices based not only on ratings but also bearing in mind that there are unscrupulous ICO projects willing to get the highest possible rating using every possible means — and not all of those means are honest.

Let’s face it: Some firms flat-out buy a high rating on the platform. That’s bad enough but even worse is that some of the large stand most renowned ICO listings offer this type of ‘promotion.’

One method of checking rating reliability: Become Somebody Else

Here’s one straight forward method to get closer to the truth: Pretend to be an ICO representative. Send a letter to the ICO listing and ask precisely what you need to do to increase your rating. If this is one of the platforms that sells ratings, you won’t wait long for a reply.

A second approach to acquiring reliable rating info: Research

Don’t blindly trust ratings. Do your own research. It’s easy: Check out the various social networks connected to the ICO project, review media articles about the firm, and compare their ratings across different platforms.

For instance, if on one listing you find a low rating and a highscam score, but another listing for the same project boasts 10/10, that’s a red flag, and you’d be wise to distrust that resource.

Third review: Analytical Team is mandatory

Every ICO-rating listing should have a team of solid, professional analysts. They should publish their rationale for rating a project, list which aspects they review when doing their research, and clearly state exactly how they go about evaluating the tokenomics of each ICO.

We’ve done a bit of research ourselves.We asked various individuals if they take ratings into consideration. We also asked how they go about making decisions regarding which ideas are investment-worthy. Most crypto-enthusiasts report that they don’t rely solely on the ICO rating platforms — even though those platforms do comprise a good portion of their research — but they’re also diligent when it comes to researching as many factors as possible before coming to their own conclusions.

Many investors believe that the best way to find a reliable ICO is via the Bitcointalk forum. There they can ask questions of, and get answers from, professional crypto-investigators.

Conclusion

Whether or not an investor chooses to believe an ICO rating platform is up to the individual. However, our recommendation is first to confirm that a particular ICO listing gives honest ratings. Then, once you’ve confirmed credibility, take the time to gather as much research possible for the project you’re considering.

The bottom line is that, when it comes to investing, you can do your own research and make very well-informed decisions without relying on unreliable rating platforms.

Today’s ICO market is enormous, deliberately non-transparent, and sometimes downright tricky.

Check out a number of the most trusted ICO rating platforms here: https://icobench.com, https://forico.io, https://icoholder.com

read original article here