I'm wondering where they're going to find data points for the coins that are nothing other than a white paper and an impressive barrage of outrageously spun PR.
One would assume any missing data points would simply result in a low, or even zero, score. Can't prove it's good? Points deducted.
Don't expect anything from this. lemme guess, ripple triple A, everydody else-C or D
They probably don't understand that this is NOT CREDIT.
bwahaha
what stooges!
When I read the quote about how it might cause controversy, I was initially quite optimistic:
to help them [investors] cut through the hype and identify the few truly solid cryptocurrencies. (...) But they’re bound to create controversy, including some grades that may come as a surprise to some people,” Mr. Weiss added
Straight away, I thought that all the cynics out there were going to be left shocked and dumbfounded when it turns out Bitcoin actually gets a decent score because it really is solid and does have the fundamentals that most other altcoins lack. But now that you mention it... yeah, the doubts are starting to creep in. This is a relic of the traditional finance sector, after all, so why not take a cheap shot at the truly distributed, permissionless coins and lavish praise on the private, walled-gardens? It's entirely plausible they could blow their metaphorical load over the centralised crapcoins like Ripple and Stellar and rate everything else poorly. I guess we'll find out Wednesday.
We might yet be pleasantly surprised. I mean, it
sounds like they're taking it seriously, at least? Maybe they're sensing a change in the winds and want to get this right when it turns out crypto can. in fact, be
more stable than the ticking time-bomb of debt-based national currencies. Fingers crossed, I guess.
