I would do this more with a system of points.
e.g. every 3 months a CC is reviewed and given points for the following items:
A Merchant adoption:
- Existence of online merchants/services in:
-- Exchanges: +1
-- Online wallets and other currency-related services: +2
-- Gambling +5
-- Electronics/Hardware +10
-- Services that are not gambling +10
-- Food and other essential goods +20
-- Other goods: +10
- Adoption by offline merchants: +10 per country with active merchants
- Existence of centralized craigslist/ebay-style marketplaces: +10
- Existence of descentralized marketplaces: +10
B Development:
- Real innovations (not limited to simple changes in distribution mathematics): +10
- Existence of commits in last 3 months: +2
- No commits in last 6 months: -5
- No avaliable Open Source code: -10
- Development team is publicly known (not necessarily by name) and active in community: +5
C Coin distribution:
Category Mined coins:
- Premine: -10 for every 0,1% premined without reasons
- Premine: -10 for every 1% premined for development team
- Premine: -10 for every 1% premined for bounties, "IPO shares", etc. without transparent distribution
- No points rested for totally transparent IPO/bounty distribution of premined coins.
- Instamine -10 for every 1% of total planned supply mined the first week
Category Non-mined coins (Ripple, Nxt etc.):
- IPO duration: +1 for each month
- "Reserved" part for developers etc.: -10 for every 1%
- Limited IPOs (e.g. maximal 100 "shares"): -5
- Increasing price in IPO: -5
D Communication/Marketing:
- Existence of dubious marketing promises without proof ("Safe growth", "ASIC-resistant" etc.) in "official" communication (from dev team): -10
etc...
(That's only a very raw draft. The most important thing I want to outline is that merchant adoption is the most important factor.)
Topic: [RFI 1] Crypto-Currency Potential Rating System (CCPRS) - First Draft (Read 716 times)
April 05, 2014, 03:41:03 PM
April 03, 2014, 12:14:47 PM
I like the initiative. I think interviewing the developers of a given coin can give you a lot of insight into many of these items. If they decline to be interviewed, well, then they may have something to hide which would impact their rating.
April 03, 2014, 12:08:34 PM
First Draft: Crypto-Currency Potential Rating System (CCPRS)
Our small project intents to design an technical and economic rating system for crypto-currencies, that is a generally applicable. And is aimed at assessing innovative
coins in the given different contexts, e.g. their origin, their own objectives & motivations and their (potential) impact level on the whole crypto-currency scene.
The projects goal is to create an viable, easy to apply rating framework, that can be reproduced and applied by everyone, without requiring big introduction work
or lot's rating experiences. This goal is based on the strong believe, that once a crypto-currency rating system has gained a meanigful level of acceptance and
trust in the crypto-currency scene, it's enabling everyone - in the process of designing and developing crypto-currencies or (considering) contributing to an
existing coin - to make better and more fact-based decisions, knowing their own personal acceptance levels in regards to potential benefits vs. the given risk.
Many people think, this will have an big positive impact on the whole community and esp. the scam-fested altcoin markets. The reasonings for that assumption are
pretty obvious.
Like most non-crypto financial rating systems, we propose an category-based scoring system. This decision was heavly influenced by mentioned above intentions
of wide usage and confirmability.
So our first task is, to design and define an classifying process, that is formal, systematic and logic & math. This proccess will be used, to do an plausible
classification of the analyzed currency, resulting in the main scoring outcome: the category rating, it will be assigned to.
We think it's most suitable approach, to start with five very basic categories and adapt, if needed after looking at the results or following demands from community
to change the rating system. The categories are named:
Most Attractive (best rating),
Attractive,
Neutral,
Dangerous,
Very Dangerous (worst rating).
This is, where we need the input of the crypto-currency community. We want you, to give us an idea and impression, of what you think what coin characteristics or events around the coin, should be part of which category. Just by providing some insights or examples for every category, of what you think should be in this and what not and why, your input will help us to better understand the communities range of opinions.
Your ratings, opinions and conclusions are needed. So we can really build an rating system, that gives useable results, aiding in business and investment decision and hopefully protecting some other members
from being defrauded, using the knowledge they can gain from this system.
Please follow this answer sample, and use bullet points if possible:
Category 1 - Most Attractive
A typically coin is in Cat 1 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 1: ...
A coin with this characteristics can't(!) be in Cat 1: ...
Category 2 - Attractive
A typically coin is in Cat 2 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 2: ...
A coin with this characteristics can't(!) be in Cat 2: ...
Category 3 - Neutral
A typically coin is in Cat 3 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 3: ...
A coin with this characteristics can't(!) be in Cat 3: ...
Category 4 - Dangerous
A typically coin is in Cat 4 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 4: ...
A coin with this characteristics cant(!) be in Cat 4: ...
Category 5 - Very Dangerous
A typically coin is in Cat 5 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 5: ...
A coin with this characteristics cant(!) be in Cat 5: ...
Please stay positive in replies. It's an first draft and not more. Because of our proposed methology and wanted practical relevance.
We needed this request for comments.
We are open for any feedback. This is an community-driven project.
Thank you.
Our small project intents to design an technical and economic rating system for crypto-currencies, that is a generally applicable. And is aimed at assessing innovative
coins in the given different contexts, e.g. their origin, their own objectives & motivations and their (potential) impact level on the whole crypto-currency scene.
The projects goal is to create an viable, easy to apply rating framework, that can be reproduced and applied by everyone, without requiring big introduction work
or lot's rating experiences. This goal is based on the strong believe, that once a crypto-currency rating system has gained a meanigful level of acceptance and
trust in the crypto-currency scene, it's enabling everyone - in the process of designing and developing crypto-currencies or (considering) contributing to an
existing coin - to make better and more fact-based decisions, knowing their own personal acceptance levels in regards to potential benefits vs. the given risk.
Many people think, this will have an big positive impact on the whole community and esp. the scam-fested altcoin markets. The reasonings for that assumption are
pretty obvious.
Like most non-crypto financial rating systems, we propose an category-based scoring system. This decision was heavly influenced by mentioned above intentions
of wide usage and confirmability.
So our first task is, to design and define an classifying process, that is formal, systematic and logic & math. This proccess will be used, to do an plausible
classification of the analyzed currency, resulting in the main scoring outcome: the category rating, it will be assigned to.
We think it's most suitable approach, to start with five very basic categories and adapt, if needed after looking at the results or following demands from community
to change the rating system. The categories are named:
Most Attractive (best rating),
Attractive,
Neutral,
Dangerous,
Very Dangerous (worst rating).
This is, where we need the input of the crypto-currency community. We want you, to give us an idea and impression, of what you think what coin characteristics or events around the coin, should be part of which category. Just by providing some insights or examples for every category, of what you think should be in this and what not and why, your input will help us to better understand the communities range of opinions.
Your ratings, opinions and conclusions are needed. So we can really build an rating system, that gives useable results, aiding in business and investment decision and hopefully protecting some other members
from being defrauded, using the knowledge they can gain from this system.
Please follow this answer sample, and use bullet points if possible:
Category 1 - Most Attractive
A typically coin is in Cat 1 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 1: ...
A coin with this characteristics can't(!) be in Cat 1: ...
Category 2 - Attractive
A typically coin is in Cat 2 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 2: ...
A coin with this characteristics can't(!) be in Cat 2: ...
Category 3 - Neutral
A typically coin is in Cat 3 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 3: ...
A coin with this characteristics can't(!) be in Cat 3: ...
Category 4 - Dangerous
A typically coin is in Cat 4 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 4: ...
A coin with this characteristics cant(!) be in Cat 4: ...
Category 5 - Very Dangerous
A typically coin is in Cat 5 if: ...
A coin with this characteristics is autom. Cat 5: ...
A coin with this characteristics cant(!) be in Cat 5: ...
Please stay positive in replies. It's an first draft and not more. Because of our proposed methology and wanted practical relevance.
We needed this request for comments.
We are open for any feedback. This is an community-driven project.
Thank you.
Jump to: