Think you caught a few aspects that I missed in my broader and shallower index that I proposes here. And I think I captured a few aspects that could make a combined index a good idea. I especially think your index lacks a bit of growth perspective towards chains like HIVE, and as such is a bit to kind on HIVE for the things it hasn't addressed yet.
It's overall a deeper thought through set of parameters than my more shallow and general (but broader) one.
Ideally for example name-resolution and front-ends could and should be more decentralized, the same as IMHO part of the side-chain eco-system, especially in an economic sense.
Maybe you (we?) could try to patch your index with a deeper analysis of the four higher level concepts in my index.
Further, I'dd be interested to know why 1,2 and 6 have a higher weighing factor, and why you choose not to treat the components as a vector in the calculation of the final metric.
But apart from that, a great article.
This index framework lacks a bit more than that, lol. The problem with writing a paper like this is that you fall into a rabbit hole very easily. You write to explain and it opens more things to explain.
Its static. The methodology for determining categories would have to be developed and adjusted towards the goal of the index. What is it that we want it to show?
I just picked the most obvious categories.
The indicators as well would need to be researched etc. I wanted to show that this could be done.
Because its a 5 page paper that was written in a few hours and I simply didnt spend the time thinking about these things. 😄
It was a burst of inspiration.