In the last few months. ICO-rating agencies have sprung up like mushrooms from the ground, their trustworthiness, however, is anything but high. Very ICO-rating agencies are suspected to be for positive Ratings have been paid. The inflationary award of 5-star reviews for projects that offer little substance, a negative impact on the credit rating industry. A pity, because there is credible, objective ICO-Ratings are urgently needed.
To learn more about the industry, we met with Benjamin rickenbacher, Chief Scientific Officer at Alethena,. Alethena is a new Swiss ICO-rating Agency, pretending to be different than your competition. As it is with ICO credit rating agencies and suggesting that Alethena is trustworthy, we have tried in the Interview to find out.
Why should I your ICO-Ratings of confidence? By what measures it brings your credibility in your Ratings?
Alethena only offers Ratings. That means No Consulting, no Trading, no Advisory, no ICO-as-a-Service. In addition, the rating fee on the part of the company is fixed and known to the public. Furthermore, we carry out a “fundamentals-based” Rating. This means that we analyze on the basis of a very strict methodology all the aspects that are, in our view, for the success of ICOs is important. We are not left to Pay us on random opinions from the Crowd, or Followers, but on facts, such as White Paper, business plan, product specification and existing prototypes and Code.
It all makes sense?
Now often the data in order to make a detailed analysis of the Blockchain Startups, are missing, therefore, ICO Ratings currently at all useful?
We based our Ratings on information we receive directly from the ICOs. This information is not part of mandatory public (e.g. contracts, patents, etc.). A Startup is, of course, can not provide the same documents as an existing company. Essential information (e.g. uncertainty in the area of the token distribution, use of funds, technical documentation), this is noted and leads relatively quickly to a lower Rating is missing, however, from our point of view.
What are the criteria weighted in your strongest, in order to assess the Blockchain Startups?
It depends on the type of the project. In the case of a Token Offering, it is especially on the Business Case. Developed a complete new Chain, so the main focus is on the network itself, so in the technical Dimension. In both cases, moreover, the legal Setup must be adequately transparent.
Now China has launched a national credit rating Agency for crypto-currencies. What is your opinion of it?
The Chinese state is jumping on that train, shows the enormous market potential as well as need for credit Ratings. Based on the mid-may issued a Report, a total of 28 crypto-currencies expert with regard to technology, application and Innovation evaluated. Our methodology differs in the sense that we can evaluate not just crypto-currencies but a holistic company, the Blockchain Assets, such as Equity, token, Bond, Tokens, etc., emit. In addition, the question of whether a Rating was really implemented objectively, independently and transparently in the Ratings by experts, of course.
What agencies of the established credit rating?
Could you imagine that in the future, the three major rating agencies Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings ICOs and crypto-currencies to be evaluated?
Does not exclude this, of course. Currently, a market is a accredited credit rating Agency admission is, however, very unlikely. This has two reasons. First of all, these Ratings are based primarily on financial data; without end-to-end financial, the typical Credit-Rating-can-approach does not apply to pay over a number of years. For Startups this is, of course, is almost never the case. Secondly, the ICO-world is currently still too small, so that it would not pay off the risk for an established credit rating Agency.