BVH accesses its information from sources it believes to be reliable. However, as the blockchain sector is still in the nascent stages of development and attracting a wide diaspora of stakeholders, it is practically impossible to attest to the accuracy of data and information. There are a large number of very different reasons for this. These include:
Scope: A lack of clarity about the range of activities that come under the umbrella of blockchain. For instance, the terms blockchain, bitcoin, digital ledger technology, cryptocurrency, digital currency, and virtual currency are often used synonymously.
Different Legal Approaches: Even if blockchain’s scope could be defined, there is little conformity about how various aspects are interpreted legally. For example, the basis for differentiating between utility tokens and securitised tokens differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Lack of Homogeneity in Regulation: There is considerable variation in the extent and manner of blockchain regulation in various jurisdictions.
No Consensus on Standards and Taxonomy: The innovative and competitive impulses within blockchain remain very strong. This makes it correspondingly harder to agree on universally acceptable definitions, standards and guidelines.
Measurement and Reporting Bias: Blockchain is permeating every aspect of our lives and every corner of the globe. However, little thought has been given to how this impact can be best measured. Conventional media has toyed with a number of proxies – the price of bitcoin, the amount of funds raised by ICOs or VCs, the number of dApps in production, the amount of source code published and so on. Even if a suitable metric could be found, there would still be enormous variation in reporting levels, especially for product that is still in stealth mode. Language and cultural differences are an additional compounding factor – are Anglo-Saxon commentators well positioned, for example, to report on blockchain innovations in China and Japan?
Individual Interpretation and Errors: The site developers, BVH, bring their own form of bias. As a private company with only minimal resources, they can only hope to identify a snapshot of total blockchain activity. Its subsequent capture is then prone to the usual measurement pitfalls. (The problem of double counting is especially prevalent - even though a lot of steps are taken to minimize its impact.) Finally, there is considerable subjectivity in how data is interpreted.
Be that as it may, BVH acknowledges that it has accessed its information and data from a wide variety of sources - and it would like to record its thanks to each of them. It has made more extensive use of some sources than others and, in this regard, would like to acknowledge the significant contribution made by the following data providers in key parts of its data capture:
Initial Coin Offerings / Security Token Offering: ICO Bench, Coin Schedule, Smith & Crown, CoinDesk, Token Data, ICO Data, ICO Drops, Token Market, ICO Tracker and ICO Watch List.
Venture Capital: Crunchbase and CoinDesk.
Enterprise Blockchain: Crunchbase, TechCrunch, EU Blockchain Observatory Forum, William Mougayer, Blockchain Daily News, CryptoCompare.com.
Media Commentary: CoinDesk, Coin Telegraph, CryptoCompare.com.
This is not a complete list of data sources and BVH will endeavour to attribute its sources as accurately as possible on an ongoing basis.