Help improving Nu's listing on cyber.fund

[desrever]

https://cyber.fund is an alternative to CMC which is starting to gain some traction …

They have a page for NSR and a page for NuBits

Those pages can be improved by community and I encourage you to do so by submitting a PR on github for

nubits and nushares

1: https://github.com/cyberFund/chaingear/blob/gh-pages/sources/NuBits/NuBits.toml
2: https://github.com/cyberFund/chaingear/blob/gh-pages/sources/NuShares/NuShares.toml

[cryptog]

The column “token” could be misleading…“Stable” means fixed supply?

[CoinGame]

I’ve submitted a couple PR’s to try and improve it.

[creator]

misleading

Hi,

Yes, stable it mean that supply is stable, we think that it is very important information for holders.
More information about cyber Rating you can read in our blog - https://blog.cyber.fund/releasing-the-rating-98ea0733b893

@desrever Thank you for collaboration. It’s very important for us that community participated in the creation of the system page. The more informative this page will be the easier it’ll be to understand for new users)

If you’ll have any questions, I will be glad to help you at any time,

Konstantin

[CoinGame]

How are the ratings calculated? They looked to my hard coded in the TOML files. Is there a guideline somewhere of how this is judged?

[CoinGame]

ohhhhkay, I see what’s going on here. Now it makes more sense. There’s clearly some sort of bias for certain projects on this website. I was wondering how dacplay could be rated 4 stars while Nu is rated 3. It doesn’t appear that they’ve actually delivered anything other than a successful crowdfund. While Nu has been around for almost a year successfully delivering on the stated goals, and even having sent out dividends!

So I scroll down to find out more about dacplay, because I’ve never heard of it before. Oh it’s a bitshares fork… says it’s “powered by bitshares”… and is registered to the same address as the bitshares office.

I mean that’s odd to see something which hasn’t delivered anything rated above many other long term crypto-projects - not just Nu.

Even all the bitassets are rated 3 stars. If you go to the bitUSD page on their own site its calculated price is $1.09 (at the time of writing). Hell, (at the time of writing) bitUSD is trading for $.94 on BTER. The assets only job is to be pegged to the dollar, and it doesn’t even do that. It has struggled for a long time as well. How could it possibly be rated one star higher than Peercoin, Monero, or even CoinoUSD (which is another failed pegged asset)?

Now I had expected to see that these values were lobbied for by the bitshares community, and looked for the pull requests that entered these values. Though it looks like they were configured by one of the core contributors of the website.

Now i’m not accusing the site of intentionally trying to mislead. The only assertion i’m willing to make is stating that this website is functionally broken given that it’s sorted by default on the rating, and the ratings don’t appear to have any basis on reality.

CoinGecko.com uses an algorithm based on publicly available information to generate its scores. It can be wonky but it’s fairly clear on how those scores are generated. I don’t see any consistency here on cyber.fund.

So, i’ll simply restate my question above. How are the ratings calculated decided? Is it up to the discretion of the site admins, or is feedback taken into account? Will there be some sort of automated system implemented in the future? Am I totally off the road here, or is what i’m seeing fairly accurate?

[creator]

Thank you for your commits)!

Not yet, but we are working hard on it. The first time we used it for our Cybernetic Economy Report
You can read about the rating in our blog here

Releasing the Rating – cyberblog

To be honest methodology behind cyber•Rating is quite raw. It is more about our experience than strict and objective rules. So, think of it as a hint, but not recommendation of any kind. The more data we would have, the more community would be involved, the more experience we would get, the better cyber•Rating would become. A separate post on logic behind cyber•Rating will be released in a near future.

[creator]

Your arguments are clear)
So now it’s more about our experience than strict and objective rules.I suggest to wait for the rating methodology and return to this question later. We are only at the beginning, we’ll move step by step to improve our service. You can look our Roadmap on GitHub.

[CoinGame]

Fair enough. Thank you for the response.

[creator]

And i agree with you about dacplay:) I think when we’ll launch the methodology the situation will change)

[CoinGame]

I’m sure it will. I didn’t mean to be so overly critical. I assumed that the website was being promoted in the sense of a complete state, though it appears you’re in more of a beta stage. To end on a good note I will say I like the design and look forward to the updates.

[21xhipster]

Thanks for your help! If site is in beta stage, methodology is more in alfa. We understand that good rating couldn’t be just calculated as in Coingecko case (guys do awesome job) and there should be experts component. Otherwise we will have Paycoins and other stuff in the top… We are working on rating step by step. Please get a look on my upcoming post with some considerations (it is unpublished draft). I hope we will manage to release a draft of rating concerning independent systems until August.