[DPRating] Github Audit for 200 Blockchain projects — April 2018
May 19th, 2018; by DPRating team Translated by Peng Xiangxin and Tyler Garant
During our code audit we found that some of the most renowned cryptos, ones always occupying the top 20 in market cap, have performed poorly for several consecutive months. In certain months, the development progress is close to none, as was the case with Neo and Litecoin this month. Projects like these might have a market cap that’s possibly overvalued dozens of times over, and DPRating suggests investors be cautious with these kinds of projects.
Scry has opened up access for our auditor to investigate its private library, an act we very much appreciate. For projects (such as Vechain and UIP) that haven’t published their library for “trade secret” concerns, DPRating suggests and invites them to open up private access as a way to publish their development progress.
After the release of DarpalRating-Code Audit List of March we received plenty of feedbacks from our readers. If there are any new projects that you’d like to add to our list, please comment on this article and let us know.
In this month’s code audit we have made the following improvement:
- Added private library: For the concern of protecting trade secrets, some projects haven’t made their GitHub library public. Investors can only stay informed on these projects through the official reports of the projects themselves, relying on information that cannot be verified through a third party. Scry has allowed DPRating access to its private library to verify the actual progress of the project. We hope that more projects with private libraries decide to take this approach in order to allow a third party to audit its work.
- Newly added projects: gulden、Wanchain、United Bitcoin、Cortex、credits、Jibrel Network、Qlink、True Chain、rise、district0x、lightChain、ipchian、WaykiChain、wepower、datum
In the future, you can search for our project code audits on dprating.com.
How do we rate?
Popularity of the Library
Popularity of the Library is defined as the mean number of Watch, Star and fork. Very High: > 500, High: between 100 and 500, MediumL between 20 and 100, Low: Below 20.
Number of Contributors
Number of Contributors: The number of contributors that have committed code in the last month. High: More than 12, Medium: between 6 and 12, Low: Below 6.
Release Frequency: We took the version release frequency of Bitcoin and Ethereum, 14.31 days for a new release, as a reference value. We then divide the number of average days spent for a new release by 14.31 to get a release frequency score. High: below 2, Medium: between 2 and 4, Low: above 4.
e.g. The main chain of EOS has been released 35 times from 4/1/2017 to 4/2/2018, for an average of 9.13 days between new releases. This divided by 14.31 is 0.71, so the release frequency of EOS would be considered high.
Type of commit
A1: Continuously, steadily developing new features
A2: Fixing Bugs and testing after new feature developments
A3: Releasing few new features based on initial commitment and changing configurations.
B: Fixing bugs and testing for Devops
C: Changing configuration for Devops
D; Cannot be defined in any above category
The overall rating ranges from 1 to 5
Popularity of the library: 1 point for Very High, 0.5 points for High, no point for Middle or Low;
Number of Contributors: 1 point for High, 0.5 point for Medium, no point for Low
Release frequency: 1 point for High, 0.5 point for Medium, no point for Low
Number of Commits: 1 point for over 200 commits, 0.5 point for between 100 and 200 commits, no point for between 30 and 100 or below 30
Commit type: 1 point for A1 or A2, 0.5 point for A3, no point for B, C and D
Notice that We only audit core libraries. The definition of core library varies for each project.
Here is the list:
If you like our reviews, also join us on: