This morning I stumbled upon this article (it's about cryptomiso.com - for anybody who isn't familiar with it, it assesses coding activity according to GitHub, creating a ranking):
https://news.bitcoin.com/new-website-ranks-600-cryptocurrencies-github-activity/The article states:
- "Github commit frequency shows that core code is being maintained, but it doesn’t show the quality of these updates. For example, a minor bug fix would be scored the same as adding Lightning Network support. As a broad indicator of a cryptocurrency’s developer support, however, Cryptomiso is a useful tool."
- "While the coins that are top of the list can safely be regarded as a going concern, those that are bottom of the pile need to buck up their act. The likes of Bigup (609th) and Tittiecoin (608th) are no particular surprise. Nor is Fedoracoin (586th), which warrants a mention if only to note that its ticker is TIPS. A number of better known coins and tokens rank surprisingly low on the list though. Red Pulse (567th) only launched in October and has seen just one Github commit since then. Substratum has also only had one commit since launching last year."
This indicates that a high ranking means high activity in terms of the code-development, however not at all respecting the quality of the respective changes and enhancements. So I'm very unsure of how much the site's content should influence my research.
According to your experience, how would you evaluate its usefulness concerning future developments of coins?
Best wishes and thanks.
