Broker scoring · 6 factors
The broker spine
Every broker on InteractiveCrypto carries a 0–5 score on the six factors
below. Two factors — Trading fees and Security —
are weighted ×1.2 because they compound the most in real-world use; the
other four sit at ×1.0.
Spot + futures + funding spreads
- 5 A perfect score
- Published spot + futures + funding tables, no opaque markups, withdrawal fees at-cost or zero.
- 1 A failing score
- Hidden spreads, surprise funding, withdrawal fees that exceed the on-chain cost by 10x.
- w Weight rationale
- Spreads, funding, and withdrawal fees compound against returns more than any other factor on a frequently-traded venue, so we double-weight transparent, all-in cost.
Licenses + jurisdictional standing
- 5 A perfect score
- Multiple Tier-1 licenses (FCA / SEC / MAS / VARA / ASIC) actively supervised; segregated client funds; insurance.
- 1 A failing score
- Offshore registration only; no segregation; serial regulator warnings.
- w Weight rationale
- A regulated venue is recoverable when things go wrong. An unregulated one is not.
Coins, fiats, derivative pairs
- 5 A perfect score
- 200+ assets with 24h volume above $1M each, multiple fiat on-ramps, futures pairs that match spot.
- 1 A failing score
- 20 majors only with no fiat ramps.
- w Weight rationale
- Coverage breadth is utility, but we don't reward listings without depth — a thin order book on a long tail is worse than not listing at all.
Cold storage, audits, history
- 5 A perfect score
- ≥95% cold-storage, recurring third-party audits published, proof-of-reserves with liabilities, no material incidents in 5 years.
- 1 A failing score
- No published audits, prior breach without reimbursement, hot-wallet ratio above 30%.
- w Weight rationale
- A custodial venue is only as safe as its weakest infrastructure layer. Doubled weight to penalise weak posture.
Speed, fees, transparency
- 5 A perfect score
- Crypto withdrawals process within 30 minutes, fiat within 1 business day, all fees disclosed up-front.
- 1 A failing score
- Withdrawals routinely take 5+ days; fees applied without disclosure; pauses without notice.
- w Weight rationale
- Time-to-cash is the test of operational integrity. Fast, predictable, transparent.
Mobile, web, support quality
- 5 A perfect score
- Mobile + web parity, sub-second order placement, 24/7 multilingual support with median first-response under 5 minutes.
- 1 A failing score
- Mobile app missing core order types; support that takes 72h to reply or only via email.
- w Weight rationale
- A trading venue you can't operate confidently under stress is unusable when it matters.
Coin scoring · 6 factors
The coin spine
Coins use a parallel six-factor template but with different doubled
weights: Fundamentals and Network security
carry ×1.5 because everything else (adoption, governance, even
tokenomics) is conditional on those answers being yes.
What problem it solves and how credibly
- 5 A perfect score
- Clear, defensible thesis (settlement, programmable money, payments rail) backed by 5+ years of shipped roadmap.
- 1 A failing score
- Marketing-led project with no technical differentiation, no shipped product, no clear use-case.
- w Weight rationale
- What problem does this network actually solve, and how credibly? Doubled weight because every other metric depends on this answer being yes.
Supply schedule, vesting, distribution
- 5 A perfect score
- Fixed or transparently-decaying issuance, public vesting cliffs, insider allocation under 25%, no surprise unlocks.
- 1 A failing score
- Unlimited inflation, undisclosed insider allocations, opaque cliff schedules.
- w Weight rationale
- Supply schedule and vesting tell you who is selling and when. Bad tokenomics defeat good tech.
Hashrate / stake, validators, incident history
- 5 A perfect score
- Hash-rate or stake securing tens of billions; broad validator distribution; no successful chain reorg in years.
- 1 A failing score
- Few validators, history of consensus halts or successful 51% attacks, opaque incident response.
- w Weight rationale
- If the consensus layer can be attacked for less than the value secured, the network's promises are conditional. Doubled weight.
Active users, devs, TVL, real-world use
- 5 A perfect score
- Daily active addresses in the millions, sustained developer growth, real-world payment or settlement use.
- 1 A failing score
- Activity dominated by wash trading, no developer growth, no third-party integration.
- w Weight rationale
- On-chain activity, developer count, real-world integration. Talk is cheap; transactions are not.
Exchange listings, depth, ETF rails
- 5 A perfect score
- Top-3 exchange listings, $1B+ daily spot volume, ETF or regulated futures rails available.
- 1 A failing score
- Listed only on minor venues, daily volume thin enough that a $100k order moves the price 2%.
- w Weight rationale
- Can you exit a meaningful position without moving the price? If not, the quoted price is fiction.
Foundation, treasury, upgrade cadence
- 5 A perfect score
- Public foundation accounts, on-chain or transparent off-chain governance, treasury reporting on a fixed cadence.
- 1 A failing score
- Anonymous core team, no published treasury, governance decisions announced after the fact.
- w Weight rationale
- Who decides what the network does next, and how transparently? Foundation governance failures kill more chains than technical ones.
Honesty rules
The contract with the reader
-
No pay-to-play
We do not accept payment to add a broker, coin, or wallet to a directory. We do not accept payment to raise a score. Affiliate relationships are disclosed inline next to every CTA and never affect editorial grading.
-
Distribution targets
On a typical 24-coin or 95-broker review set, expect roughly 3 As, 16 Bs, 3 Cs, 2 Ds. F is reserved for products with documented, unresolved consumer harm. If the spread looks too generous, the bar moved up — not down.
-
No conflicted positions
Reporters covering altcoin reviews do not hold those altcoins as personal investments. Bitcoin and Ethereum are exempt as broad-market exposure. Personal-trading disclosures are reviewed quarterly.
-
Corrections, in public
Material errors are corrected on the page with a dated correction note appended below the byline. We never silently re-write a published review.
Refresh cadence
When the numbers move
Editorial factor scores
Quarterly editorial review of every factor score for every product, with a public changelog when a score moves more than 0.5.
Live data fields
Live numeric fields (price, market cap, fees if scraped, withdrawal speed if measured) refresh on a weekly cron and overwrite the cached value at build time.
Disclosure
InteractiveCrypto operates an affiliate model: when a reader signs up to a
broker via a tagged CTA, the publication may receive a commission. Per FTC
Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255) and the EU UCPD, that relationship is
disclosed inline on every affiliated link with a sponsored rel
and a visible badge. Affiliate participation has no effect
on factor scores or ranking.
Nothing on this site is investment, tax, legal, or financial advice. Crypto
is volatile and you can lose 100% of capital. Trade only what you can lose.
See all review verticals →