Upvote if you think ethtrader should create a community rating service for ICOs

I think it’s time our community decided to take initiative and provide a community rating for ICOs. We do a lot of bitching but not a lot of action taking. If anyone is willing to help me with site building and become part of a collaboration of minds we could provide a place where traders can contribute their well rounded insight on upcoming projects. If we can become a reliable “evaluator” of projects over time we might be able to enforce standards on ICOs in order for them to be successful (working proof concepts, auditable ICO token smart contracts, designated allocation of funds, etc). I’m willing to put in the effort to bring this to reality if anyone else wants to help or at the very least think this would be useful.

Edit: it should also be made clear this rating wouldn’t be a rating based on potential profitability. We wouldn’t want to become the “amazon review rating” of eth projects. It is merely a certification of whether or not the team has done their due diligence on each respective project.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6o0om9/upvote_if_you_think_ethtrader_should_create_a/”>View Source

Share this Story
Load More Related Articles
Load More By admin
Load More In From_The_Net


  1. charly37

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    We should do a token for that and introduce it with an ICO

  2. redbullatwork

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I’ve been saying this for awhile. I’ve made a couple posts about it, and actually have a couple pages of notes of how I would approach it.

    Different things should be weighted differently in a rating system, here’s a few points that should be considered when issuing a rating on smart contracts.

    * Ether Lock Schedule in place
    * Start Time in contract, allows sharing of address before go live (reduces scam ops)
    * Prefunding, allocating tokens to certain investors beforehand. What %?
    * White Paper
    * Alpha, or working product
    * Teams history, any known scam projects etc etc etc
    * Multisig Keys

    There are probably a dozen other variables to take into account, all of them should be given certain weight. If this project of yours were to hold an ICO of it’s own, the tokens could be used by companies to submit their ICO for review.

    I’m interested in helping out anyway I can, like you, I see the need for a “JD Power” type rating system, or something along those lines.

    What does this do for the devs? Well after we review the code, they will have a badge they can host on their site, if someone clicks on this badge, it will be redirected to our page. On our page, we will outline the rating in plain text for the average user to understand the structure of the crowd sale. Of course, making no predictions on the value of the tokens.

  3. PlsHalpHowToFashion

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Stop with this “upvote if” shit. That’s the whole point of upvotes already. To express the fact that you agree with it. Literally just remove the “upvote if you think” and you’ll have a perfectly good title. Don’t turn this into a meme filled cesspool.

  4. yosh579

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    That’s what this sub used to be lol. I wouldn’t mind reading more insight on ICO’s though.

    Don’t know how effective it will be as far as dumb money going in but I like the idea.

  5. juststyle

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Sorry to say that, but isn´t that the point of Cofound.it? To only allow and “certificate” certain ICO´s and give ICO´s which are handled on their platform some kind of seriousness?

  6. mrcurrency

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I don’t want them to become ‘gatekeepers’ for ICOs. That’s dangerous territory itself.

  7. noelster

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Can we please stop with these bullshit “upvote for xyz” posts. They’re childish.

  8. IIIlllIIlIIllI

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    we can rate them on a scale from shit, shittier, the shittiest.

    or: good, better, the best way to burn your money

  9. TheClericOfJava

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I think as long as the members of the vetting/rating team are vetted prior to joining, are free from conflicts of interest, and have the requisite knowledge to provide a consistent and valid rating, it’d probably be one of the best things available to the community.

  10. carlslarson

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I actually did some work towards doing this as a dApp last week. See https://github.com/EthTrader/rated

    An alternative is to hack it on top of the comment system like this https://www.reddit.com/r/EthTrader_Test/comments/6n0so9/ethtrader_community_review_delphi/

  11. toss001

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    This will only make things worse by giving undeserved blessings to many projects which will exacerbate the ICO rushes.

    Until MANY MANY people keep losing money like coindash or EOS or Tezos dumps, it won’t stop the speculators.

  12. asifinperson

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I think this is a terrible idea. We’ve gone from a utopian, unregulated, publicly determined market to a regulated, managed, protectionist market that’s there to protect people from themselves. So, essentially just like the system the blockchain is trying to replace.

    This is condescending at best, a centralised rating group at worst with the potential to tank good projects based on conflicts or interest (read: anyone who owns any coin).

    Whatever happened to the trust less promise of Ethereum?

  13. thetompain

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I think one of the most important metrics is the one Joey Krug and Pantera Capital are using for their ICO VC fund.

    >JK: Our preference is protocols where the token is integral to the functioning of service itself — in protocols where tokens are the only exposure to the network.


    Meaning the token has to be an essential part of the project, not just a way to fund development. Augur and REP do this, as do some others. Most ICO projects do not.

  14. ThetaD8iu

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I think it’s a not so hot idea unless it’s done by competent and experienced business analysts and consultants.

    Not some hobbyist “hodler” that can be easily swayed by technobabble and easy promises.

  15. parkufarku

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I’d rather just ban all ICOs until we figure out a method to this madness of overfunding


    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    This is an excellent idea, and would serve to allow the cream of the crop ICOs to rise to the top. In the mean time, services like cofound.it are doing this on a more general scale by vetting and partnering with projects that have the best shot at succeeding, although they can’t vet every ICO.

    If needed, I would be glad to propose you use Musiconomi as a test bed for your vetting system, as our ICO is coming up later this month and we want to be as upfront as possible with our community!

  17. JuanPARADOX

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Maybe some web devs can get together to build a rating/review site? I’m down if other devs are interested. GitHub anyone?

  18. tnpcook1

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Maybe just a list of ICO’s and their concerns.
    If you let people praise them, they’re gonna pump the shit outta them.

  19. 33virtues

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Agree. Also, as I just mentioned in [another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6nzwh4/never_miss_an_ico_again_district0x_dnt/dkdp0aw/) I think publishing some guidance/fostering some kind of certification program could be useful.

    The guidance can start with requiring a vesting schedule for founders/advisors with a portion of funds locked in a contract (devs need long-term incentivization, see STORJ implosion) , and % of treasury stored in a stablecoin like Dai (when it’s available). As it stands, even well-intended ICOs may be operating with no clue on how best to serve their investors in turbulent markets.

  20. YYCExplorer

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

  21. SpeakerToRedditors

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    We need some sort of Crypto Exchange Commission like the SEC.

  22. anton_lotos

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    It’s a very good idea. I am looking at running an ICO and the biggest problem I face is trust. No one trusts ICOs right now, especially the bold, crazy ones which (to me) are the most interesting. I would love to contribute my project to this effort, if some people get together and would like to verify its integrity I will volunteer my project.

  23. cryptocurrency99

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    No, something like that should be assigned to experts who either know the technology or know about the team. This community has no cost of entry and is extremely biased around ICO’s.

  24. galenmoore

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    The interesting thing about crypto is that, contrary to regulators’ belief, it provides more transparency than other asset classes. You just have to wear out shoe leather to get it.

  25. cubby13579

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    That doesn’t sound like it would be abused at all. Knowing ethtrader, we would definitely not hype and fomo every single ICO that says they will support the ETH ecosystem. And we certainly wouldn’t unfairly ding BTC maximalist projects that aren’t good for ETH.

    This is a decentralized space. If any of you actually care about decentralization then you would know that a centralized rating service with no fiduciary incentive for the people they “advise” is a terrible idea. The community guide is “don’t buy into an ICO unless you want to”. If the community implodes because of bad decision making, then I guess we’re not ready for the decentralized economy.

  26. _7POP

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Great idea! I would love to contribute somehow.

    Could we use some sort of distributed proof of work (or proof that you got your ICO checklist all checked off with satisfactory scores) system, to prevent bribes, gaming, collusion around the verification? Maybe even incorporate a smart contract somehow?

  27. iamthewildturtle

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Bitquence is going to be a new platform that’ll help streamline legit ICOs

  28. Rickard403

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Calling all IT professionals. Create it. We will use it. We will donate ethereum for your troubles. Thank you

  29. taylorgerring

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    How about some video reviews of ICOs? We’ve got one up already for district0x and an ICO review of EOS should be up later this week. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkFjuupTY0WSYmv2ZE5T5d2VK6wEcUXZK

    What ICO could we review next?

  30. Aeirs1

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Sure why not.
    Let’s not rule out that a mod could be bought out though.

  31. Tweakfix

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Create a group that will spread FUD on ICOs that don’t pay them for a good review, and pump those that do? Nah

    Let people learn to think. By letting them make their own mistakes and getting burned.

  32. _wovian

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Would love to participate. Am a product guy.

  33. Pashley91

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Best post I’ve seen on this sub. You want money? Sort out this ICO crisis.

  34. Sir-Dagonet

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    As a newcomer, I like the idea.

  35. xvsOPxDwUw

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    I only trust this sub to make memes.

  36. Skaarson

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    So basically a moodys for ICO’s.

  37. cavkie

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    We don’t need separate site for this. Most of the issues of any past icos were addressed here. And you see comments like “huuuge” or “scam”. You will see similar on your site if it’s community driven. It will be like bitcointalk forum where you need your own brain to filter through noise.

  38. softestcore

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Under condition that the system is designed in a way that prevents gaming or manipulation.

  39. skyfox3

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    yes this needs to happen, and count me in for participation. It should be completely unbiased though, meaning no one profits from it.

  40. xyrrus

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Can we bucket all the scams into a sub-prime ico and rate them as investment grade? 😛

  41. Enigma735

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    What we really need is a certifying body that performs due diligence (contract audit/review, white paper analysis, current stage of the development lifecycle, go to market strategy review, etc.) and awards ICOs with a certificate / stamp of approval. I think that is what ConsenSys is aiming to do with ConsenSys Capital / ConsenSys Diligence, but I haven’t heard much about it.

    If your company is holding an ICO and you don’t get the stamp of approval, immediate red flag to all the potential “investors.”

  42. stOneskull

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    great idea and project.

    knowledge is power.

  43. GDVF

    July 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Ethtrader needs to hardfork

Check Also

"Eva Mendes" Celebrity

Eva Mendes made her first splash in the ...


Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com