Can't agree more but it starts with gathering data which in time can be converted into information taking into account (and stating) any assumptions. People can still reject the analysis but this at least starts the discussion.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@nateonthenet Hmm, well the job of an analyst is to prevent anything from getting under the radar. That's exactly why I think we need one.
Luckily we already have @parejan who like statistics. I agree with him we should open up a discussion on Slack.
Have in mind, the above is far from a good analysis. It's a bulls**t, with just some basic parameters. The good one will take many other aspects into accounts, including the movement of other cryptos among other markers. It's a very complicated and time consuming job.
In my opinion, GRC do perform great. In last 2 months, raised by double while almost all the other cryptos failed, including but not limited to Bitcoin, Monero etc..
These projects have very good teams of analysts standing behind, and GRC raised strong above others without all that fancy s**t. I could only imagine how much we could achieve if we employ best industry practice in decision making processes and base them on high quality analysis.
Talking about analysis it is indeed all about looking at data from different angles. Two days ago I wrote a short article on Steemit (here] where I compared bitcoin with the "science" coins. In conclusion Gridcoin did a great job compared to Bitcoin but Foldingcoin did even better. In this case there seems to be a general interest in "science" coins.
I agree that the analysis can take a lot of time so it can be a limiting factor but it is better to start and do something than do nothing at all. This is why I teamed-up with @jringo for SotN and I'm would like to look at the info you presented above as well.
Hmm, just read your post and leave a comment there so I am not going to repeat everything, but you obviously did a good observation of few points that i totally missed.