Putting the rating to ICO trackers
Carrying out of any potentially successful ICO project is mandatory associated with large-scale public relations campaign — relevant information is published in the media, social networks and instant messengers, some thematic groups are created. A special place in this promotion is occupied by ICO trackers — paid and “shareware”. To analyze them I have dedicated this material.
To begin let’s define the terminology:
It is obvious that the project, which is in the top lines of the rating should be more attractive for investors (especially when such information is available on reputable sites).
Theoretically, the rating of the project is determined based on the estimates of analysts, experts and financiers. In fact, it often turns out that the” experts “ of a number of trackers artificially underestimate the position of ICOs, after which the team is offered to pay for its lifting. In our current business — data-service Denim — there is a certain analogue, which is called “raising the questionnaire to the TOP.” This allows you to find a person with similar interests and goals much faster. Approximately the same in the rankings — pay for getting into the top and find an investor in a shorter time.
By the way, such “experts” were immigrants from large Russian state-owned companies, which suggests that all the troubles inherent in the usual business, are beginning to migrate to the crypto-world.
in the end, unfortunately, suffers the investor who invests in a dubious project and does not invest in a profitable one.
Another problem is the lack of information about the trackers themselves. ICO initiators have to evaluate the level of a resource based on the experience of other teams, published reviews, and their own analysis. The latter method, though time-consuming, but the most reliable.
The second method is a comparison of the forecast, which was given to the already closed ICO, and its actual result. It is clear that analysts can also make mistakes, but if the percentage of such errors is too large, then this is an occasion to think about.
Unscrupulous analysts are not the only problem that can be encountered. Another actual problem is the delay in the publication of information about ICOs. With such a problem you can often encounter when you deploy the project on supposedly free services. Tracker employees deliberately do not post information about the project, explaining it by a variety of reasons — from incomplete information about the project provided by the developers, ending with a lack of time, as well as “workload of specialists”. Sometimes this process is delayed for a month, and as a result, information about the ICO appears on the service simultaneously with its completion. But when you pay for priority placement, everything’s changing — a specialist appears in the right place, and instantly all the materials are tested.
Lots of trackers may surprisingly change the price of their service, despite existing agreements. Firstly, one cost is discussed with the administration of the service, the project is placed on the site, after which it is proposed to pay more to save the project in the rating. If you reject such a “profitable” proposal this will lead to the loss of reputation and already invested money. To minimize the risks, before placing the project on the tracker you should contact the companies that have already used the services of this site. Yes, their opinion may be biased, but it’s better than nothing. It will be more efficient to request information from several teams and draw your own conclusions.
Summarizing the above, I would like to note that I am not against placing projects on trackers — this should be done. But the choice of the site should be treated with extreme seriousness, especially when new trackers appear as mushrooms after the rain. It is necessary to give preference to services with already developed reputation, but at the same time it is necessary to consider that there also can be pitfalls.
