I like your posts - you're doing what I wanted to do which is analyze new ICOs from a more objective perspective based on concrete things like team, code, and funding. My first effort on Ziber.io turned out to be mostly right - it was a scam that really didn't have anything substantial behind it and vaporized.
Upvoted and followed!
Thanks for taking an interested. Upvoted and following back :-) I've come across about a dozen scam ICOs now although I do not name them. They are, however, easy to identify and we've sent out posts on how to do so (at least how to do so from our perspective).
I used to work for a consumer product rating company, people who make products that get bad ratings can be very touchy about it. A good strategy is to just use numbers or percentile buckets and let the data speak for itself. We'd rate products seperately on health, environment and company social facets and average them together into a 0 to 10 score. I think you could do the same with ICOs. It's hard to be objective about many things, but it's easy to be transparent about when you are being subjective.
We're actually working on something similar at the moment for our future reviews. And I think there are a few benchmark ICO type websites out there although I haven't looked at their methodology. Definitely think, yes, that it's difficult to be divorce any ratings from subjectivity but, then again, see no other alternative.