Show meaning of points

[demiculus]

When pressing/hovering on a point it should show what that point means.

Currently the point meanings are shown when hovering over "Points" word. But individual points should also show this.

The same should be done for Turkish as well.

[osolmaz]

Are you satisfied with

4: Definitely buy this coin.
3: This is one of the best coins I’ve seen.
2: You should definitely check this out.
1: This coin is worth a look.
0: I’m neutral about this coin.
-1: Shitcoin."

Looks amateur.

2 doesn't have the word coin. We should also try to decide whether we are evaluating based on technology or investment opportunity

[demiculus]

We need to change this.

How does "We're evaluating based on legitimacy." sound?

It isn't an investment opportunity because while Bitcoin & Ethereum aren't good investments, they are legit coins. They should get top points from our system.

It isn't exactly technology because coins with no tech but good business can also perform really great like Binance.

@osolmaz @goktugyil what do you guys think about legitimacy?

YC recommending startup form: http://prntscr.com/k3ojg6 YC strength options: http://prntscr.com/k3ojlb

According to these here are my proposals

4: 10%+ of my portfolio is in this coin.
3: This is one of the best coins I’ve seen.

4: This coin is likely to stay alive the next 50 years.
3. This coin is likely to stay alive in the next 5 years.

4. This coin is likely to increase 1000x in the next 3-5 years.
3. This coin is likely to increase 100x in the next 2 years.

2: You should definitely check out this coin.
1: This coin is worth a look.
0: I’m neutral about this coin.
-1: Shitcoin."

[osolmaz]

So we are evaluating according to legitimacy vs scamness

Should we rename ourselves as scam detectives also?

Is legitimacy a desired metric? Is it what comes first to people's minds?

[osolmaz]

Demir says everyone will be scammed in the next 5 years. So hunting for and exposing scams could be a market need

[demiculus]

"Is legitimacy the desired metric? Is it what comes first to people's minds?" these are good questions.

Here is how I think of what legitimacy is. From 0 as the shittest shit coin to 10 as the next Google.

0. Bitconnect -> Obvious scam
1. Scam icos where the white paper is copied & the team is random stock photos combined with random names.
2. Real team but everything else faked. 3.. 4.. 5..
3. Real product with a real team but it will never work. 7..
4. Real product with a real team with a tech that will work but never is used because no market need. 9..
5. Everything (market, team, tech, use case, etc.) legit.

So according to this list, we are looking for the most legit projects. And we only try to invest in the most legit ones.

So I have 3 questions

1. Does this way of thinking sound reasonable?
2. Should we proceed with it or find another way of thinking?
3. If we proceed is legit/legitimacy the right word?

[Esqarrouth]

legitimacy is a bad goal. everyone is trying to pick legitimate coins, no one is trying to pick scams. making the difference between scam and legit is easy.

these guys are doing it the best: https://icocheck.io/

the thing about market is, if the person, team is knowledgable, educated, visionary enough to come with a great new idea that will fill a void in the market, its very unlikely for them to be scammers. because scammers try to scam because they do not have a long term vision and aren't knowledgable.

so if we just rate based on their tech+business model, we automatically mostly get legit coins and no scams. if we rate based on ROI too we get the most legit coins that also have a good tech and good business model.

so the classic question yc asks works: How big can this become?

making difference between good investment and bad investment is hard.

If it can become bigger, it should get high score.

also everyone is doing unbiased fact checking in coins. we are doing biased investment advising. and no one is doing this, I haven't seen this anywhere except random people posting tweets or telegram groups, fb groups etc.. ICO checker guys are the only ones that are doing this and they do not keep a good database.

[Esqarrouth]

Maybe something like this:

4: This coin is one of the best coins and will surely provide great ROI. 3: This coin looks great but not sure about ROI. 2: You should definitely check out this coin. 1: This coin is worth a look. 0: I’m neutral about this coin. -1: Shitcoin.

[demiculus]

@goktugyil if our criteria is "how big can this get" then bitcoin should get 4 right?

But it says: "This coin is one of the best coins and will surely provide great ROI." I don't think BTC will provide a great ROI according to the other smaller assets?

[osolmaz]

But it says: "This coin is one of the best coins and will surely provide great ROI." I don't think BTC will provide a great ROI according to the other smaller assets?

I think planning according to ROI should be left to the investor. We shouldn't micromanage investors' decisions. It would be subjective

[Esqarrouth]

@demiculus can bitcoin get any bigger after this? Well yes it can get to trillions but thats nothing compared to how big Amoveo can get from the point its at. So there is the timing component of the reviews maybe?

[demiculus]

Then are we saying "how big can this get regardless of timing"

@osolmaz does that sound good to you? This means that google, amazon, fb, bitcoin and similar projects will receive 4 (and they deserve 4)

They can't grow much bigger, but their cap is at $100B+

[osolmaz]

Then are we saying "how big can this get regardless of timing"

@osolmaz does that sound good to you? This means that google, amazon, fb, bitcoin and similar projects will receive 4 (and they deserve 4)

yes

[demiculus]

@osolmaz This isn't closed.

The problems are

1. Design of point system
2. When people hover/click here: http://prntscr.com/k4kzjt nothing shows up.
3. When people hover/click here: http://prntscr.com/k4kzn2 nothing shows up.

Could you do #2 & #3

@osolmaz @goktugyil For #1 can we agree on changing it to:

How big can this get regardless of timing?

4: This coin will definitely be one of the market winners. 3: This coin has a really high chance of being a market winner. 2: You should definitely check out this coin. 1: This coin is worth a look. 0: I’m neutral about this coin. -1: Shitcoin.

[Esqarrouth]

Actually, don't try to come up with the scores. Big fail trap.

Ask 10 people who might be in the market how they want to see coins ordered and gave points by. Then do which fits most of the market.

[thellimist]

4: This coin will definitely be one of the market winners.

There is no definite. Always avoid words like definite for predicitions. I think 4 is useless. Everything can be 3. I told this when we first did it the system as well. It doesn't feel like it's better than 3.

10^6 orders of decisions where as 10^5 is enough (see star system with 5 decisions). Even 4 is good imo. 1000x potential which is what we're looking for (shitcoin is -10x)

2: This coin has a really high chance of being a market winner. 1: This coin is worth a look. 0: I’m neutral about this coin. -1: Shitcoin.

[osolmaz]

There is no definite. Always avoid words like definite for predicitions.

I definitely agree. Making definite statements can make us look stupid, also in the future in other places.

2: This coin has a really high chance of being a market winner.

Is really necessary?

[osolmaz]

Also, should we use a star system (actual stars) ?

The problem with the current scale is that it is counterintuitive. We can't express ratings like e.g. -1/4

How further back does it go in the negative scale?

Basina eksi koyarak kendimizi tatmin ediyormusuz gibi geliyor. Bence onemli olan puanlarin goreceli olarak dogru verilmesi

[osolmaz]

Konuyla ilgili https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_voting

[demiculus]

I labeled this as later. This is one of those features that won't make or break the system. Thus we can optimize this when its time comes.