Thank you for your input, this is exactly what I'm looking for.
You are probably right in that you have to weigh Initial Distribution heavier. With my previous 1-5 based system a whalecoin with lots of developers and a large community could be ranked as high as a good coin with fewer developers and smaller community.
Example 1-5 system:
(ID/DEV/COM)
5 + 3 + 3 = 11
1 + 5 + 5 = 11
Example 1-100 system:
(ID/DEV/COM)
60 + 15 + 5 = 80
10 + 30 + 10 = 50
I never thought about it that way but it makes sense if the Initial Distribution is done fairly the community should be healthy to.
And yes development should be the metric to compete with in fair projects so it should be rewarded.
Topic: How should we rate cryptos? (Read 220 times)
I think you pretty much have the greatest part of it covered.
I would weight initial distribution though as double the weight of development progress and accomplishment and far far greater than the social element and growth of a community around it.
If it is rotten from the core and is due to implode as soon as the few insider whales decide it is time to dump and take their tech to a new project under a new name it will be game over regardless of the other 2 categories.
I would weight it
Initial distribution score out of 10 x 6 = max possible 60
Developmental out of 10 x 3 = max possible 30
Community out of 10 x 1 = max possible 10
That may seem extreme weighting for initial distribution but actually if it is distributed well you should have a good community involvement anyway so then the development will be the leading factor between all fairly distributed projects.
total score out of 100.
This system would work nicely for long term real projects not so well for instamined or insta ico pump and dump junk or even real tech projects designed to long term self enrich insiders and devs only.
Just a suggestion may be change thread title to
How should we rate cryptos? so others think they should give input and bring ideas.
I would weight initial distribution though as double the weight of development progress and accomplishment and far far greater than the social element and growth of a community around it.
If it is rotten from the core and is due to implode as soon as the few insider whales decide it is time to dump and take their tech to a new project under a new name it will be game over regardless of the other 2 categories.
I would weight it
Initial distribution score out of 10 x 6 = max possible 60
Developmental out of 10 x 3 = max possible 30
Community out of 10 x 1 = max possible 10
That may seem extreme weighting for initial distribution but actually if it is distributed well you should have a good community involvement anyway so then the development will be the leading factor between all fairly distributed projects.
total score out of 100.
This system would work nicely for long term real projects not so well for instamined or insta ico pump and dump junk or even real tech projects designed to long term self enrich insiders and devs only.
Just a suggestion may be change thread title to
How should we rate cryptos? so others think they should give input and bring ideas.
I’m trying to figure out a good way to rate cryptocurrencies focusing on the metrics that make them a good and safe investment.
I'm looking to combine metrics on the scale of 1 to 5 to create a single score that can be awarded to cryptocurrency projects.
These metrics would ideally be a combination of both hard and moving values so the single combined score could change over time.
It would look like 3 + 5 + 4 = 12 where 12 is the combined value of the three 1-5 metrics.
In my mind I have three metrics I think are important for rating cryptocurrencies:
Initial distribution (cetaphobia)
1-5 Hard value
This value would not change and would be based on the width of the distribution. The wider it is, the less opportunity for scamming.
Development (code & milestones)
1-5 Moving value
Would be based on things like updates on github/new software releases and milestones reached.
Social (communication & community)
1-5 Moving value
Based on the projects outwards communication, the communication with their community and the community's general health.
What metrics would you use?
I'm looking to combine metrics on the scale of 1 to 5 to create a single score that can be awarded to cryptocurrency projects.
These metrics would ideally be a combination of both hard and moving values so the single combined score could change over time.
It would look like 3 + 5 + 4 = 12 where 12 is the combined value of the three 1-5 metrics.
In my mind I have three metrics I think are important for rating cryptocurrencies:
Initial distribution (cetaphobia)
1-5 Hard value
This value would not change and would be based on the width of the distribution. The wider it is, the less opportunity for scamming.
Development (code & milestones)
1-5 Moving value
Would be based on things like updates on github/new software releases and milestones reached.
Social (communication & community)
1-5 Moving value
Based on the projects outwards communication, the communication with their community and the community's general health.
What metrics would you use?
Jump to: