Great
Based on 730 reviews
weissratings.com4.2Honesty, pricing, process and quality scores appear once 5 customers have rated them.
In Business Since 1971, Weiss Ratings empowers millions of investors with ratings, research and newsletters that provide the highest accuracy, the best safety and the most profitable investment guidance.Each day of the year, we issue over 52,000 newly updated ratings, including investment ratings on nearly all U.S.-listed stocks, mutual funds and ETFs; safety ratings on nearly all U.S. banks, credit unions and insurance companies; plus cryptocurrency ratings on most actively traded digital assets.Based on this vast array of ratings and research, our newsletters guide subscribers to investments and strategies with the goal of preserving and growing their wealth with confidence.
weissratings.com (weissratings.com) has 730 customer reviews on Folks Told, with an average rating of 4.2 out of 5.
730 approved reviews, newest moderated first
Jamison O.
Should not be in the business of rating cryptocurrencies. They don’t have even a basic understanding of how different protocols work and are extremely bias. As others have mentioned, they also plagiarize other peoples work. It’s about as bad as you can imagine.
Peter H.
Known to plagiarise reviews in the past. General game is to take bribes from those that are invested in a crypto in return for a good review. Unethical, misinformed, rubbish.
Alfonso
Reviews are often shallow, totally off the mark, ignorant, and absolutely clueless. Will imperil those who get fooled by their work. They rate highly the most controversial and scammiest of coins. On the other hand, they'll probably give your crypto asset a good review if you compensate them well. In all the years we've seen their work, they've been pretty much useless and wrong for just about everything else.
Donnalisa
I couldn't choose 0 star. Very unprofessional comeback to their act of being caught plagiarising.
John F.
Plagiarizing false information on a project (NANO). Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.
JohnCom
Their article about $nano review is a copy paste of an existing article. Very bad signal for a start. They are simply not serious as they didn't make their own research. Indeed, the article is erronous for most of the related topics.
Alexander T.
Their article on #nano is a 1:1 copy of a medium blogpost by viperblckz, but their editor Juan Villaverde pretends it's his content. The article is not only proven to be incorrect but also published without consent of the original author.
Adalton R.
This can't be serious. These guys copy and paste old FUD and call it review. Shame on you. $NANO.
