I am somewhat surprised by the nearly complete absence of intellectual integrity on the part of the critics of this research and the insistence on defending the indefensible by means of innuendo and unfounded attacks. NOT!
The first line of the Wiki goes like this:
"
Note: The following attempts to approach 90% of the top ranking coins on www.coinmarketcap.com in terms of their rudimentary mining data."
What is it that is so hard to understand about that statement? Are you all really that mentally challenged?
“
. . . in terms of their rudimentary data.”
Now, if you’d like to criticize the fact that there isn’t better data to work with (instead of trying to blame that shortcoming on the author), that’d be another thing (where, by definition, you’d actually end up finding yourselves more closely aligned with the author and probably not too happy doing so).
There are other metrics, like being able to tell the difference between which dev is a scam-man, and which is simply incompetent (two very important metrics for making long term investment decisions BTW, both equally disastrous, but with the latter always having the remote possibility of ‘making good’), but those are very subjective metrics ATM (not to be ignored, to be sure, just because of that however, when we see very clear signs that someone is either killing the code or intentionally manipulating).
On the other hand, this research is attempting to be as objective as possible. What problem does anyone possibly have with that? Other than not wanting what little objective data there is to become better known?
Why would someone suggest that this research is invalid due to the limited (by nature) data it is based on? And how infantile to think that you might be able to discredit the author based on such a childish attack!
Is there somehow, somewhere, more objective data on real, verifiable, historical coin behavior that could be included?
How can you blame the author for the shortcomings of the subject under study?
Objectivity depends in large part on objective data. The only reason why I think someone would try to put down with irrationally aggressive attacks an objective report based on the scant objective data available would be that they don’t want any objective analysis to begin with of whatever little objective data that there may be – they'd prefer to keep the ‘suckers’ in the dark (much can be said about someone by their reaction and attitude towards any given stimulus . . .).
Now, the next logical step would be to start comparing what different devs say with what they do/have done, coin specs and objectives with real life expectations, transparency with the lack of, etc., but those are, as I’ve said, much more subjective and open to debate, and, as such, well beyond the scope of this current work (so if you want to be critical of the limitations of this wiki, you know what to do and can start rolling up your sleeves).
And if anyone is honestly struggling with the conceptual premise of this current work in progress, think about it this way: if past performance (i.e. track record) is any indication . . .
