On April 24, 2018, the ass clowns 🍑🤡 at Tokenicide posted an article called ICObench Warmer that provided clear and convincing evidence that several of the top-rated experts on ICObench were colluding with one another, ensuring that if a blockchain startup hired several of them for their advisory board, other ICObench experts would be sure to give the ICO near-perfect scores, regardless of the quality of the project. Our article concluded as follows:
We think it’s time for ICObench to clean up its act or get out of the game.
On May 3, 2018, ICObench posted a Medium article entitled ICObench Experts: New rules for a better community. According to the article, ICOBench said that it wants to clean up its act.
This made all of the ass clowns 🍑🤡 at Tokenicide extremely happy. So happy, in fact, that all we could think to say was
Begin Warm Fuzzies
Before we get too deep into this, can we just say that we are so used to writing in a grouchy, acerbic style that writing a happy “thank you” type piece is quite difficult? What’s that? You’d rather we didn’t? Because you don’t give a shit? And why are we talking about ourselves when we should be writing about ICObench and thanking them? Well apparently SOMEONE still likes being grouchy and acerbic. Jeez. 🙄
What impressed us most about the ICObench article was its unequivocal admission of the behavior we had identified in ICObench Warmer, such as:
[M]any experts abuse their power as we can see from numerous complaints we receive daily.
[M]any experts [purposely take on far too many] projects … at the same time … in order to gain a higher place in [our] People of Blockchain rating, [and] also … have a bigger expert’s weight.
So far so good!
After acknowledging the problems, ICObench then offers a five-step proposal to address them, summarized as follows:
- Experts who don’t actually review anything will be relieved of their expert status;
- Experts will be formally prohibited from rating any projects they are advising;
- Expert ratings lacking explanations will only be weighted at 50%;
- The ISS rating will be capped at 10; and
- Experts who contribute more to the community will be identified as such.
We certainly cannot complain about any of these proposals and agree they should be implemented…
But…(and it’s a really big butt 🍑):
End Warm Fuzzies
None of these proposals address the underlying problem, which is the economic incentive to exchange money for ratings. We already covered everything ad nauseum 🤢 in ICObench Warmer and ICO Review: eInc and we’re not going to rehash everything again, but the bottom line is that none of the abuses we identified in those articles are addressed by the proposals in your Medium article. Not one. And unless you remove all the pay-for-play economic incentives, the abuses will continue. Guaranteed.
So, once again, thank you ICObench for acknowledging the problem and proposing a solution. But if you’re serious, really serious, about fixing the problem, you need to make those economic incentives go away. If you can do that on your own, wonderful. If you need assistance, please reach out to us or others in the space who would be glad to help. We all really want to get this issue fixed.
But one way or another, you need to fix it.
And until then, we will be watching…