As I've said in the past about choosing the right project in cryptocurrency, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. There are tens of thousands of bad projects with only a handful of good ones. So if you are to get into crypto with the least risk, you better go right straight to the number 1 and that's Bitcoin.
And although you may be right in your steps in identifying a high-quality crypto project, how many of us actually scrutinize whitepapers, websites, technical backgrounds of team members, project technical innovations, and so forth?
The problem with scrutinizing papers or other documents, is that you can't really tell if they will indeed implement their objectives.
How many projects have we seen to have a very well-written and comprehensive whitepaper but ended up a failure?
Team members with very good educational and industry background, and yet, they ended up abandoning the platform.
In my opinion, one way to identify quality projects is if the platform is successful in attracting active users.
Not only at the beginning of the launch (because some are being obliged to register if part of the campaign or there is airdrop), but also after years of its existence in the market.
That means, we can't identify a high-quality project at the beginning just by the docs they presented, but should be years of their operations in the market.