Good job boys, although your algorithm seems to favor a bit too much social media presence.
Although I love Mineable, Im not sure how he is with S status with 2 videos per year and at the same time you have in example Geometry labs, who have contributed a lot to the network, worked on Balance and Rob practically is managing 1/3 of the nodes on the network, and they are still with C status. Is it fair to compare builders with PR at all?
Transform group are B? We dont have anything else on them but twitter follower count (which I am quite sure is fake from my experience with them first hand). Should we all go and buy 100k followers from the nearest bot market to go up in the rankings? 🙂
Also Chainnode are C, although inactive for more than an year
I know that it is a very difficult job and that is the main reason that nobody has decided to make such evaluations so far - because even with a perfect system, the weight and components set on the system are subjective to what the app builder sees as most important, so thats not a critique, just some feedback 🙂
Another difficult (but in my opinion very important) factor to implement is funding, although Im not sure how it could be accurately measured. In the example above Mineable is working with several tens of thousands USD funding each month and Geometry are working with 2-3k per month. Spartan are A status with 100k usd/month and they have built a very cool marketplace but at the same time Piconbello is C with building multiple tools while running at a loss. Im not against Spartan having an A, but shouldnt Piconbello's score be higher as they have done quite a lot with their limited funding
I kinda think that there should be a division on the actual sphere of work of the P-rep and that the calculations will need to be more complex in order to really capture the contributions of the team to the community
Just my 2 cents 😉
