Great start, I hope this resource will stay alive and iterate to become even better. Depending on who is doing the evaluation, the depth and possibility of doing a full evaluation is of course different. A few changes I would like to suggest:
- CORE TEAM: Full disclosure of ALL blockchain projects ALL team members have been involved with. Involvement with scams, failures or unserious projects are usually uncovered by the community late in the process, better to have everything from the source early on.
- CORE TEAM: Is the team fully committed to the project or just names on the paper?
- BUSINESS MODEL: Vision. Is there a clearly articulated vision and why do they need to fund the project now?
- BUSINESS MODEL: Potential legal challenges. Just being on the blockchain does not remove the need to follow regulations and being compliant. It’s often more complex, as regulations differ across jurisdictions.
- BUSINESS MODEL: Include project incorporation structure and project governance.
- BUSINESS MODEL: Is the project blockchain intrinsic or extrinsic? Meaning, is the whole business model contained on the blockchain (i.e. transparent and trustless) or are there parts connecting to the outside world? How is this bridge handled?
- TGE: Why is the TGE done now? What problem will the TGE help them solve, only funding (maybe VC funding is better?). Do the token model help them overcome a network bootstrapping problem?
- TGE: Trading Infrastructure — I would move this to the Network Valuation & Asset Pricing section. Crypto exchanges (in general) do not allow projects to use their names for marketing before a TGE happens, and it disqualifies them for later listing.