this is useful but I am not sure that is a really reliable metric on its own to base any value around.
I would say initial distribution is the single most important thing to consider when looking at any project in the context of decentralised trustless environment. If you dont care about that then why not just match them up against centralised entities and go invest in those.
Some of those projects could have a million commits and they would still have to over come issues worthy of multiple nobel prizes to complete their white papers promises.
Better to just look for teams that have produced something workable with a real use case that could get some traction.
Those trying to blind you with the latest cool sounding techno babble are soon rendered useless to the next slightly updated design that comes along.
Many of those projects will be abandoned and the same devs will start something new and take the useful code they have created to the next project of which you will get no value from.
Pick reliable dev teams that have been around for years and are producing month in month out real results and have a tangible product that fills a real use case
Sometimes over complexity is only good from blagging funding from those who do not understand it is not required or not even feasible.
BTC with lightening is likely to obliterate a bunch of these "improved latest and greatest designs" simply because it will do all that it needs to and has so much investment and adoption behind it.
There will be room for other alts with specific use cases simply because they are so specific and so well designed that it will take years for them to be supplanted by models that use btc that's not to say btc based alternatives will not arise and rival them in the future too.
I would say initial distribution is the single most important thing to consider when looking at any project in the context of decentralised trustless environment. If you dont care about that then why not just match them up against centralised entities and go invest in those.
Some of those projects could have a million commits and they would still have to over come issues worthy of multiple nobel prizes to complete their white papers promises.
Better to just look for teams that have produced something workable with a real use case that could get some traction.
Those trying to blind you with the latest cool sounding techno babble are soon rendered useless to the next slightly updated design that comes along.
Many of those projects will be abandoned and the same devs will start something new and take the useful code they have created to the next project of which you will get no value from.
Pick reliable dev teams that have been around for years and are producing month in month out real results and have a tangible product that fills a real use case
Sometimes over complexity is only good from blagging funding from those who do not understand it is not required or not even feasible.
BTC with lightening is likely to obliterate a bunch of these "improved latest and greatest designs" simply because it will do all that it needs to and has so much investment and adoption behind it.
There will be room for other alts with specific use cases simply because they are so specific and so well designed that it will take years for them to be supplanted by models that use btc that's not to say btc based alternatives will not arise and rival them in the future too.
Man I absolutely agreee with your statement. However this thread should be considered as additional due diligence tool for those who DYOR.
Team is among the first to be considered for investment. But not the only one. There are many factors: market, vision, solution, team, partnerships, development, product, etc.
If I look at github and see that the technical team is committed as well as managing team I would be more confident in the project to invest.
