11 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 34.6 ms ] thread
"The chart below shows that, of the top cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, some - like EOS, Cardano, Monero, and Bitcoin - have had a lot more commits than others - like Populous or Bitconnect". Since Bitconnect is a now defunkt ponzi scheme and not a cryptocurrency, their lack of Github activity makes sense :) This analysis would be more helpful if the author properly curated the projects / tokens to include in the study.
Another factor to consider is the content of each commit. Is it just copying from another project or making trivial changes, or is there real work being done?
Seems like there would be a big difference in metrics here if committers squash their commits or not.
(comment deleted)
I love this. I've been kicking around the idea of building an automated crypto index buyer that orchestrates purchases/transfers on exchanges, around metrics like commits as well as use metrics like the ratio of on-chain value transfers to speculative on-exchange trading.

Would be nice to couple this with a Linux distribution that made it easy to create an offline wallet for new cryptocurrencies that become interesting, so you could immediately shift your coins off of exchanges.

A lot of them will probably become worth very little/go to zero, but there's a reasonable chance that the Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google etc. of the crypto world already exists as a fledgeling project.

commit metric would be so easy to fake though