Methodology v1.0 · versioned, public, binding
How the Reliability Score earns trust.
Version 1.0 — six weighted components, 24-month incident decay, every negative datapoint dated and sourced.
01
Six components
Six weights: withdrawals 25 · reserves 20 · regulatory 20 · security 15 · support 10 · maturity 10.
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 exchange page.
02
What it measures — and what not
One question only — how reliably do customers get their money out; not trading-volume legitimacy.
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
Incidents lose weight linearly over 24 months; the full history stays visible in each timeline.
Read the full rubric
Recorded incidents lose weight linearly over 24 months, so the score reflects the exchange 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 is dated, factual and sourced; severity 3+ incidents need a source URL.
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 an exchange’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 exchange can pay to change a score — affiliate links never enter the scoring, enforced in code and tests.
Read the full rubric
No exchange can pay to change a score. Affiliate links appear, clearly labelled, on exchange 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; incidents enter the record only after human verification, never automatically.
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.