A literal shitcoin to me is something with absolutely no value and no way it could ever have value. So projects that may or may not go to zero don't really count IMO because plenty of companies have good ideas end up bust too for various reasons, not just because it was an out and out scam.

For me when I'm trying to evaluate a coin, I'm looking at a few things.

Does it have a whitepaper that explains not only the goals of the project, but how it intends to reach them. So for example let's say the goal is distributed file storage, *how* are they going to do that on whatever blockchain tech of their choosing. I've read countless whitepapers that simply state a goal, but no idea how they will achieve it. Sometimes this is reasonable because they have a really proprietary idea, but most of the time it's because they have no idea what they're doing.

Is the team open and honest on who they are. Do they have a history of social profiles with some sort of work history. The work history does not have to be in tech, but it has to be there. Someone who studied at Stamford and was a research fellow is less likely to 1. Create something that is out and out crap. And 2. Out and out scam you. Because they have a real life reputation. If the team is completely anonymous, I generally stay away. There are obvious exceptions to this (Bitcoin for one), so it's not always a hard and fast rule.

Does the coin/token itself have a use. Sometimes this isn't even whether it's a "shit coin" persay. But you need to differentiate the coin/token from the project/company. Even larger projects like Ripple. You have to look at what Ripple is doing, and separate that away from what XRPs role is in all of it. For Ripples products, you barely need any XRP at all to participate. I'm probably picking on Ripple a bit here but you get the idea. Shitcoins often state lofty goals, but when it comes to "OK, so why do you have your own currency then?" everything falls apart.