This is genuinely interesting. I used to just complain about @KaitoAI's current situation without really thinking about reframing the data to find solutions. - Too many individual project leaderboards - Questions about mindshare’s validity as a metric, and also about its algorithm Below is a table categorizing projects by the average yaps of their top 100 on the 30D leaderboard. At the simplest level, bigger numbers mean these are projects heavily discussed by the "inner circle ct" of high-yap accounts. → You could interpret that as “probably good projects.” Some random thoughts: 1. The results look pretty reasonable. 2. It’s not just that big accounts mention these projects more. They’re also likely bullish on them. - Most projects reduce mindshare scores for negative posts - So you can see those high scores as a sign they’re bullish on the project 3. But the influence of just 1-2 top yappers is huge. - Top yappers have 10k-30k yaps - If even one is on a project’s leaderboard, it can boost its score by 100–300 points - That’s effectively 1–3 whole tiers on the table - Sure, it can indicate that an insightful person spoke positively about the project, but you still need to account for that when analyzing it 4. Just like mindshare, the yaps mechanism isn’t perfect. - Combining these two metrics can be risky - But looking at the results, they actually seem to complement each other pretty well Anyway, really appreciate you putting together such a fun and solid analysis. I shouldn’t be fading @megaeth_labs anymore😅