Today’s topic as you have probably noticed in the title is regarding ICObench. Now before I begin ranting about ICObench let me be clear, this is not an attempt to defame ICObench. That being said, I hope this article finds you(ICObench), in hopes that you acknowledge this and take the appropriate actions to reduce or remediate this issue. Also, I am well aware that the title contains the words “deteriorating credibility” in it, which would assume I am attempting to defame them. Being as transparent as possible, what sounds more catchy, “deteriorating credibility” or “underlying problems”? By a show of hands, how many of you have put something catchy on your social media to get more attention, told a white lie, or never returned a library book? If you didn’t raise your hand you are a stellar human being, and if you did welcome to the 99% of the world club. Completely deviating from the topic, let us jump right back into it, the ICC bench scandal ;).
Setting The Stage
As an advisor in the space, I have conducted several project reviews; following a lengthy rundown sheet of what a project should consist of. Many factors go into whether a project will be successful or not, and this requires assessing a project beyond my rundown sheet. It is vital to note that not every project from an initial observation will look promising; matter of fact several will look like a scam. However, it comes down to experience to be able to decipher who are using “fancy” words, versus who actually wants a chance to make a difference in the space. From my rundown sheet after doing my initial review, one of the final things I like to look at is the community and reputable “experts” opinions. This is where the issue comes in for ICObench because I would rather listen to the opinions of the community at any time of the week, then to view expert’s opinions on ICObench.
The issue I have with ICObench is that a majority of these experts are not exactly experts. Who are we to define what an expert entitles if there are no clear universal guidelines to what an expert is in this young and still developing space. Even myself, with all the experience I have, I still do not consider myself an expert. Although, I definitely have the experience in multiple fields such as information technology, financing, healthcare, and more to back up my position. I am not too sure how a factory worker at Kraft Macaroni & Cheese now advisor, has more credibility than an individual that used to work as a financial advisor for a known hedge fund.
Here are a few types of ICObench experts I have identified over time.
- The expert that literally says yes to every project that asks them to be on their advisory board, so that they can boost their ranking on ICObench (People for some reason put mass amount of credibility into the ICObench review system). Not sure if they are doing this because they want to be the most popular kid on the block, or to influence simple minded individuals that see the fabulous ranking this expert has, and automatically assume by having this expert on their team they are gold (cough David Drake cough cough -_-) . People in this day and age blow my mind with how easily influenced they are.
- The expert that has been around since the stone age of ICObench, and will sit there until someone gets in contact with them asking him or her to be an advisor or write a review(the lazy expert). Then they will think they are the grandfather of advisors, and tell you in the nicest way possible they expect to be compensated for taking time out of their day to review your project. As expressed in the picture below (again, I am not attempting to defame anyone, I am here to prove a point). You are given the title expert to inform, protect the community, and more while it is still in a young and fragile state. You are not expected to get paid for your review.
- The expert that literally applies to be an expert just to say they are an expert.
- The expert that actually cares about the ICO review process, community safety, and does not try to sugarcoat any criticism to a project (there are only a “handful” of people that fall under this category).
The list literally goes on. Does this just apply to ICObench? Hell no it does not. Several other platforms should feel the wrath just as much as they are, but the reason they are targeted is because they are one of the most known, “reputable”, and grandfathered review service in the space today. Unfortunately, because the masses see their reputation as superior then various other project reviewing sites, it will still have to be mildly considered. Regardless, I am not deviating from my position that it is time they start getting their act together, before their credibility becomes unrepairable. I have told past and current projects that I am on, other project leaders, and projects that are still looking to enter the space to acknowledge reviews on their site with a grain of salt, until real changes are made on their end.
Featured Article Image by: