ICORating’s Scores Do Not Match Their Reports
Disclaimer: This article is not financial advice. The author is not a financial advisor and this article was not paid for.
Before I get into some price charts and the release of a few other articles that I have been working on, I want to take a moment to bring everyone’s attention to a website called ‘ICORating’.
I’m going to preface the following statements by telling you all that I’m not leveling any specific accusations against the ICORating company, because I do not have the facts present to state that, although I do have suspicions.
I’ll keep those speculations private and just stick to the facts.
A couple of weeks ago (like mid-July ish), an individual reached out to me on Twitter through my DMs and informed me that they wanted me to share their quarterly report to you all because it seemed like I had a good following.
The name of this individual is redacted so we can keep this classy. This isn’t for ‘drama’, I don’t have a personal issue with these people, this person or company. I don’t know them.
But I’m not a fan of how some of their ICO reviews are set up.
I brought up some allegations that members of the crypto community had launched because I wanted to see what his response would be.
The answers that I was given were really unsatisfactory for me, and that’s what compelled me to tell you all about my concerns as well because I know that there are some people that are relying on that website as a means of getting a thorough review on ICO tokens.
The project, Quadrant, is a textbook example of something that rubbed me the wrong way on their website.
You can check out the entry for this project here:
_Quadrant is a blockchain-based protocol that enables the access, creation, and distribution of data products and…_icorating.com
As you can see from the screenshot here, they had a pretty favorable report of Quadrant.
However, if you view the actual rating report, the statements that they made appear to contradict the ratings that they gave this project.
To be clear, if you can’t read the screenshot, here are the ratings that they gave the Quadrant protocol (as an ICO):
- Investment Rating = Positive
- Hype Score = High
- Risk Score = Low
Now, from those ratings, a person that had been considering investing in Quadrant that stumbled upon this website may see this as confirmation that this is a legitimate investment to make with a high likelihood of a strong ROI.
However, their comments on the actual project itself in the report itself (which you have to click an additional link to find), stand in stark contrast.
Here’s the URL for that as well if you want to get to it directly. ^
_Quadrant (eQUAD) ICO detailed analysis: marketing strategy, its economics, token sale_icorating.com
In Their Own Review, They Stated That Quadrant Had:
- “Unverifiable ICO details on the date of analysis.”
- “Smart contract code on GitHub that aws unavailable for public review.”
- “Important ICO information (vesting periods, token distribution timelines, bonuses, token burning) could not be verified.”
- “Incomprehensive whitepaper. The whitepaper does not include competitor analysis (although there are no direct competitors discovered), forecasts of marketing activities or plans for product promotion.”
- “Team composition risks…apart from the founder, the other team members might not have enough experience, as they are all relatively young and most of their job experience comes from working with this founder on another project.”
In my personal opinion (and I’m sure in yours as well), it is absolutely unacceptable to pass on an ICO project with glaring issues like that a “low risk” score.
Most people that have been in crypto for a little while would see those notes about a project and see it as much more than a ‘low risk’ project.
Quadrant Engaged in an Undisclosed Private Sale
I’ll probably get in trouble for telling you all this, but I know for a fact that Quadrant had a very sizeable private sale and that they were aware of said private sale, which was conducted by a notable VC group.
I found out about said VC group via another group that I was invited into that contained Charlie Shrem into it.
I asked the people in said group to ban me from the group because I had no further interest in being a part of it after learning how they really operate.
This isn’t information that is reflected anywhere in Quadrant’s whitepaper.
In fact, according to them, the distribution metrics are as follows:
- 40% crowd sale.
- 20% held by company
- 20% stakeholders
- 10% reserve
- 10% team
You won’t find any section for ‘investors’, which is what/who private sale tokens would/should be attributed to.
Keep in mind the other missing information that ICORating themselves noted in their report when asking yourself if this is an ethical or logical rating.
Don’t Make This a Witchhunt, Focus on the Core Point Here
Don’t get distracted by asking ‘who?’
The main purpose of this information is to just reveal how people are maneuvering, not ‘who’.
Hopefully this helps someone out there.