Thanks for the kind words, it's good to know that the work is gaining some favourable views.

I'm personally gratified that thus far I've (mostly) successfully managed to keep my prejudices to myself while working on DOACC, (Minki’s web site is merely a set of HTML renderings of different views of the DOACC RDF graph).

The initial list of anon coins now has a rendering on Minkiz: https://minkiz.co/coin/anon

But no, I've never had any intention of adding a “value” relation - for two reasons that I find very compelling:

1. I don't have a good enough model to explain adequately some of the more challenging anomalies in the domain (read “a small herd of elephants rampaging around the middle of the room”). You've already identified one of them: adequately explaining Bitcoin's primacy. Others include the uniqueness of the Shibes, the implausibly steep curve of the BTC volume long tail, the persistence of unwarranted hope in hodlers and bagholders.
2. A purely idiosyncratic assessment is pretty much guaranteed to engender resentment. Unfortunately, given the chimera of a consensus definition (in common with “beauty”, “value” is in the eyes of the beholder), an idiosyncratic assessment is the only option. So, I focus on facts and supportable inference and let the results speak to the issues.


These are all good questions/points. As you observe, they're also persistent. This piques my curiosity so I'm rootling around to see if I can get some insights by applying techniques from cognitive science.

I've made some progress on the semi-automated list, at least for the top marketcap PoS coins: http://minkiz.co/coin/cmcap-pos, I intend to migrate the list to the COINZ section, once I've polished it up a bit and checked the results.

Cheers

Graham

Edit: updated URL to point to new location