"The chart below shows that, of the top cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, some - like EOS, Cardano, Monero, and Bitcoin - have had a lot more commits than others - like Populous or Bitconnect". Since Bitconnect is a now defunkt ponzi scheme and not a cryptocurrency, their lack of Github activity makes sense :) This analysis would be more helpful if the author properly curated the projects / tokens to include in the study.
Is this only looking at one repository per project? Some projects, like Ethereum, have a number of repositories:<p><a href="https://github.com/ethereum" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/ethereum</a>
Here's a site that tracks exactly this:<p><a href="https://cryptomiso.com/" rel="nofollow">https://cryptomiso.com/</a>
I love this. I've been kicking around the idea of building an automated crypto index buyer that orchestrates purchases/transfers on exchanges, around metrics like commits as well as use metrics like the ratio of on-chain value transfers to speculative on-exchange trading.<p>Would be nice to couple this with a Linux distribution that made it easy to create an offline wallet for new cryptocurrencies that become interesting, so you could immediately shift your coins off of exchanges.<p>A lot of them will probably become worth very little/go to zero, but there's a reasonable chance that the Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google etc. of the crypto world already exists as a fledgeling project.
Coingecko has been tracking this too, for example <a href="https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ethereum/developer" rel="nofollow">https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ethereum/developer</a>
Another factor to consider is the content of each commit. Is it just copying from another project or making trivial changes, or is there real work being done?
I was curious about market cap to twitter followers or posts in <a href="https://bitcointalk.org" rel="nofollow">https://bitcointalk.org</a>.