Five
Purpose, token role, sources, observable mechanism, and risk map.
Editorial standard
How BestCryptoToBuy turns evidence into a decision path
Our versioned research-readiness model scores documentation clarity separately from claim-level evidence operations, live market execution, valuation, custody access, and personal suitability.
No total can replace visible evidence. Every asset score exposes its five partial scores, while material review claims separately publish sources, limitations, freshness, conflicts, and hard stops.
0 to 3
Unresolved, weak, partial, or clear for each documented criterion.
Versioned
Material model or evidence changes require a new review date.
Published scoring contract
Research Readiness v1.0
- Evidence reviewed
- 2026-07-14
- Maximum
- 15 points
Purpose clarity
Can the network or ecosystem job be stated without relying on price?
Token role clarity
Is the asset's role in fees, security, settlement, or governance explicit?
Primary-source depth
Can material claims be checked in maintained first-party documentation?
Observable mechanism
Can a reader identify what activity or mechanism should be verified?
Risk-map clarity
Are the main technical and value-capture uncertainties visible enough to test?
Score meaning
- 0 · UnresolvedNo defensible conclusion from the reviewed sources.
- 1 · WeakA material part of the criterion remains unclear.
- 2 · PartialThe criterion is usable but important questions remain.
- 3 · ClearThe reviewed primary sources support a testable description.
Total score bands
- 14-15High source readiness
- 11-13Conditional source readiness
- 0-10Preliminary source readiness
- TiesAlphabetical by asset name when totals match.
Explicitly excluded
- Current price or valuation
- Live exchange or pool liquidity
- Custodian or venue availability
- Return potential or price momentum
- Personal portfolio suitability
Ask the same five questions for every asset
Purpose clarity asks what job the network performs. Token-role clarity asks how the asset participates. Source depth asks whether material claims can be checked. Observable mechanism asks what activity can be inspected. Risk-map clarity asks whether the main uncertainties are testable.
- Five criteria with equal maximum weight
- Zero to three points per criterion
- Maximum total of 15
Keep stable research separate from live execution
The editorial model excludes current price, valuation, live exchange or pool liquidity, custodian and venue availability, momentum, expected return, and personal portfolio suitability. A separate live layer may read chain accounts, pool discovery, and executable route quotes, but those observations never change the static verdict automatically.
- A high score is not a buy signal
- A live quote is not a recommendation
- Execution and suitability remain separate decisions
Fail visibly when a provider is stale or unavailable
Live modules publish their observation time, expiry, provider coverage, and limitations. Fresh means every required boundary answered within its short validity window; partial means at least one required boundary failed; stale means the displayed observation expired; unavailable means no usable snapshot exists. We do not replace failed live data with an unlabeled estimate.
- Timestamp and expiry on every snapshot
- Explicit fresh, partial, stale, or unavailable state
- No silent fallback values
Publish the evidence trail and change conditions
Each scored asset displays partial scores, rationales, primary sources, one open research question, model version, and evidence-review date. Migrated reviews also expose stable claim IDs, source relationships, freshness windows, conflicts, corrections, and hard-stop links in the public coverage board.
- Visible source and claim ledger
- Version, checked date, and review due date
- Explicit unresolved question and correction history