TL;DR. Ecology:3 (4). Technology:4 (5). Decentralization:3 (4). Valuation:8 (8). Rating:5/10 (5/10)

TL;DR. Ecology:3 (3). Technology:4 (4). Decentralization:3 (3). Valuation:3 (2). Rating:3/10 (3/10)

TL;DR. Ecology:8 (8). Technology:9 (9). Decentralization:8 (8). Valuation:9 (8). Rating:9/10 (8/10)

TL;DR. Ecology:- (-). Technology:- (-). Decentralization:- (-). Valuation:- (-). Rating:1/10. Scam (1/10. Scam.)

TL;DR. Ecology:2 (3). Technology:5 (5). Decentralization:4 (3). Valuation:7(5). Rating:5/10 (4/10)

Spinning off from my prior article on noble metals and other value protocols, this one will explore a number of other historical instances of when something unexpected and unconventional rose to become money, and in some cases even legal tender - full legal recognition of properties that enables for meeting a financial obligation. I want to show in...

A NEO mine - extracting GAS deep under the mountains. How much would you buy a functional mine for, given that you are fairly sure about the amount of GAS in there? Ok. Now imagine the mine and the output are both digital (but scarce on a decentralized blockchain). Valuation suddenly becomes a lot trickier.

In an earlier BD Ratings article, evidence was presented of extensive sock-puppetry among accounts connected to the Bytecoin team. The article was a continuation of a well-known BCT thread, where the most damning evidence of fraudulent Bytecoin-team behavior are collected. That same BD Ratings article brought up a recent renewal of the scam, when...