Skip to content

Methodology v1.0 · versioned, public, binding

How the Reliability Score earns trust.

A score that rates named companies has one obligation above all: every number must be able to defend itself. This page is the complete recipe — weights, rubrics, decay and data rules. When the methodology changes, the version number changes with it.

01

Six components

Withdrawal reliability (25%) · Proof of reserves (20%) · Regulatory standing (20%) · Security history (15%) · Support quality (10%) · Operational maturity (10%) — composite = weighted sum, 0–100.

Read the full rubric

Withdrawal reliability (25%) · Proof of reserves (20%) · Regulatory standing (20%) · Security history (15%) · Support quality (10%) · Operational maturity (10%). Composite = weighted sum, 0–100. The two incident components are computed from our curated, sourced incident record; the other four are curated values with published rubrics — each carries its reason and sources on the venue page.

02

What it measures — and what not

One question only — how reliably do customers get their money out — deliberately not trading-volume legitimacy, which volume-based scores like CoinGecko’s already cover.

Read the full rubric

This score answers one question: how reliably do customers get their money out? It deliberately does NOT measure trading-volume legitimacy — that is what volume-based trust scores (e.g. CoinGecko’s) already do well. The two are complements, not competitors: theirs says the volume is real, ours says the withdrawal works.

03

Incident decay

Recorded incidents lose weight linearly over 24 months, so a 2022 incident no longer moves today’s score — the full history stays visible in the timeline regardless.

Read the full rubric

Recorded incidents lose weight linearly over 24 months, so the score reflects the venue of today — a 2022 incident no longer moves the number. The incident timeline below each score keeps the full history visible regardless. Severity runs 1–5; full reimbursement of an incident is curated one severity step lower.

04

Data rules

Every negative datapoint must be dated, factual and sourced — severity 3+ incidents are rejected without a source URL, and where data doesn’t exist we say so.

Read the full rubric

Every negative datapoint must be dated, factual and sourced — incidents of severity 3 or higher are rejected by our pipeline without a source URL. Support quality uses public Trustpilot ratings as a complaint-pattern proxy (imperfect, but uniform and public — and where Trustpilot has suppressed a venue’s rating over fake reviews, we score conservatively and say so). Where data does not exist, the component says so instead of guessing.

05

Neutrality — the hard rule

No venue can pay to change a score — affiliate links never enter the scoring, and cost ranking never reads it either, both enforced in code and tests.

Read the full rubric

No venue can pay to change a score. Affiliate links appear, clearly labelled, on venue pages — they never enter the scoring, and the cost ranking on the True-Cost table never reads the Reliability Score either. Both rules are enforced in code and covered by tests. Scores are information, not recommendations: we show facts, you decide.

06

Cadence & corrections

Scores recompute daily; confirmed major incidents enter the record only after human verification, never automatically. Found an error? Write to the operator.

Read the full rubric

Scores recompute daily (decay) and whenever the curated record changes; a snapshot history drives the trend markers. Detection is continuous: we monitor the exchanges’ official status APIs around the clock — confirmed major incidents enter the record after human verification, never automatically (publishing an unverified claim about a named company would violate our own data rules). Found an error or a missing incident? Write to the operator — corrections with sources are applied and dated. Built in Vienna by OptiRisk Consulting e.U.

All exchanges: /exchanges · Cost methodology: /true-cost/methodology

Not investment advice. Skontro is not a CASP under MiCAR. Reliability Scores are information, not recommendations: every negative datapoint is dated and sourced, the methodology is public, and no exchange can pay to change a score.