When it's hard to say which project is the best use real data to evaluate each
Almost every ICO or new blockchain based project is an open source project and their share sources on the github, many of them not only upload there final version of the code but also everyday commits are pushed to the public repositories .
Thats why it is easy to track progress of each project basing on the number of commits in the periods of time. To do such analysis you can check http://cryptomiso.com/ webpage, which merge github statistics for all the new projects.
Right now cardano has first place, Waves is second and Lisk third, STEEM is sitting at the 64th position and EOS is 12th. Of course cryptomiso can not compare quality of commits and other factors that matter but it is good start if you are looking for the new project.
That's a really interesting statistic to approach analyzing ICOs & projects. Git commits isn't a perfect metric since "one git commit" is not a consistent unit of work (I know people who commit every few lines of code changed, and I know people who commit only when needing to merge with other users), however for active projects with multiple developers, I definitely think it's a good metric to evaluate the activity going on.
Thanks for the link :)
You are right, but first we can check which are active and which are not i dont belive someone might want to spam github with 'empty' commits.
I'm not saying people will spam them with "empty" commits, but in the same way that programmers all have their own unique writing style, people have their own habits and work flows. I've definitely heard people say things in the past like "we need to commit more, our graph is low this week". Committing more in these cases is just an aesthetic, superficial thing to "look" more productive, and has little to no effect on what extra work actually got done.
It's a good metric for viewing activity, however it can be easily faked (not specifically by sending empty commits, but committing every 20 minutes instead of 2 hours 6x's commits for example), and it also excludes off-Github work (NEO, for example, has a very plain Github when you just look at the official github. However, if you dig deep, you can find the NEO dev's on a separate repository writing hardware wallet code months before they were supported by Trezor Wallet, that they get zero Github recognition for it because it was done on the non-official github. This results in work being untracked, deflating the numbers, but despite the work being done, the product was advanced regardless).
Regardless though, it's still a cool metric. If you have a very diversified portfolio, this link is definitely useful to find which coins just have a dead team that isn't moving forward. It's hard to manually keep track of every project lol
An interesting indicator. Thanks! I think I may find it useful. Adding qualitative analysis made by someone who can actually read a code could create really powerful investment indicator.
might be hard since every project is 'revolutionary' :D
Coins mentioned in post:
Thanks..good info