I didn't know that and it is also impossible to verify whether they are independent or not. We all know how the three big ratings agencies did their job right before the financial crisis

They claimed to be independent, but obviously they weren't.
The one thing I really don't like and don't understand in ICObench is rating. There are several of so-called "experts" who have no idea about the tech behind blockchain and ICO. So they review projects and making grades for each project, but some of this experts are obviously don't know what these projects are about.
Yeah, this rating system is ridiculous, some great projects has 3.5-3.8 rankings
As for my opinion, every "expert" should be forced to describe his grades and leave a comment, so people can research and follow opinions not just the numbers.
I do agree with you guys, there should be a kind of explanation or the way to discuss ay least, but both of those experts haven't answered on LinkedIn.
But don't you worry, ICObench rating is one of preliminary ratings and having 5.0 is much more suspicious than say 3.8 or 4.3 as it's a result of some work done.
The final mark comes from the market anyway )