DLT WhitePaper Group Rating and Rules
The following "System-Vision-Entrepreneurship-Tokenomics" (S.V.E.T.) © rating system is used:
"S" ("System"): shows the level of authors' blockchain systems design, coding and implementation expertize.
- "A": geniuses or close;
- "B": as good as any other coders;
- "C": not good at all.
"V" ("Vision"): how high-flying and long-reaching is project's vision.
- "A": authors are going 4.37 light-years to Alpha Centauri;
- "B": there are a whole lot of papers/ authors just like this one;
- "C": authors seem to be in this game for a quick money grab or worse.
"E" ("Entrepreneurship"): does authors demonstrate that they are capable to efficiently implement the proposed solution.
- "A": ready to rock-and-roll;
- "B": ready to go slowly but, some chances exist, surely;
- "C": not ready at all.
"T" ("Tokenomics"): how well is the case for a coin substantiated.
- "A": absolutely;
- "B": barely;
- "C": no comments.
Two signs "+" or "-" also might be added to each individual letter for additional emphasis.
Additionally, to distinguish between businesses with functioning products and / or listed tokens and those projects, which are still on initial or development stages, the corresponding rating's letters will be shown in "" brackets. For example, "CBB[C+]" means that this rating belongs to existing company with non-listed tokens. At the same time, "[CBBC]" shows the rating of a project with hardly more than a whitepaper behind it. "CBBC" is to be assigned to working business with listed tokens.
If you want your white paper to be rated - send it to @svetsedov for a preliminary review. Note, however, that after receiving your paper (or a link) we can choose to publish or not a corresponding review in this group on our own discretion (see below). Otherwise, please, notify us in a same message that you want to stay private.
Please, also note that you can't utilize this Group for advertisement or promotion purposes.
WhitePaper Rating Procedure
Here are list of rules, which we follow reviewing whitepapers and assigning ratings:
- The Whitepaper must NOT contain confidential or private information.
- We will make the review and rating public both in our group and on our social blogs.
- We will review and rate only those papers, which I find remarkable.
- If your paper is not reviewed it's not our obligation to explain why.
- Our reviews and rating can sometimes be negative (or very negative) even for projects we find to be remarkable.
- Prior to posting reviews to the group we provide up to 12 hrs for rated papers' authors / companies to react to our reviews by sending a review to their private address.
- Inside of this waiting period we are expecting to receive the written response to a review (sent to @svetsedov), which contains structured arguments supporting your disagreements with my rating. This response can't be published in the group. We will carefully consider your response before making our post.
- We do accept only detailed written responses to our posts and ratings. Only those responses will serve as a basis for our decisions. Due to time limitations we will not accept any references to new documents, data, information or other sources / links.
- If we don't receive a reply within the time specified we will take it as a sign of absence of interest or a consent.
- we do not debate with representatives of the rated companies / authors in the group because it might be considered as a hidden PR by other group members. Only independent group's participants might organize those debates.
- Rated companies can react to their ratings in the group only by short, friendly and non-confrontational posts even if they want to express their disagreement.
- A company representative / shareholder / investor, who make a post in the group regarding a company's review / rating must publicly identify him/her self as an interested party.
- “Harmony” Review and Rating
- TOP Chain Review and Rating
- “Content Generation Network” (CGN) Review and Rating
- Lachesis Consensus Algorithm (LCA) Brief Review
- Metal (MTL) Review and Rating
- ChainLink Review and Rating
- Rootstock (RSK) Overview and Rating