“China-rankings” continue to dupe Western audiences

This article contains the opinions of the author.

I can always tell when Saidi Net releases their new rankings because my Twitter feed is filled with misinformation and misplaced perspectives. For many, they share the list because it fits their narrative. However, most people fail to realize a few key points:

#1 “China” doesn’t endorse the list

Despite China being a vast country with around 1/5th of the world’s population, western writers love simplifying it by simply calling it the “China rankings”. Saidi Net have always been very transparent about the list being separate from their government-sponsored activities. The title, Saidi Research Center’s 11th Global Public Blockchain Technology Evaluation Rankings, doesn’t say anything to suggest they are an ‘official’ mouthpiece for a government organization.

China’s government has a highly complex and bloated organization structure – with over 150,000 state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Remnants of the communist structure has left many industries in a government- owned limbo – where many are unprofitable, but still being propped up by loans from state-owned banks. This is to prevent having a larger unemployment issue, but like ripping off a bandaid, will need to be done at some point. The privatization will come at some point, as it’s been a core issue at the heart of China’s economic reforms.

Until that eventually happens, there are countless organizations that could fit the criteria Saidi Net does – supported by the government, but largely free to conduct their own business operations. This makes western investors particularly vulnerable to China-based scams – that claim to be connected to state owned companies, when in fact the ‘state’ has little to do with the organization or the project.

For a website such as Coin Telegraph to not make the distinction between China and Saidi Net is both worrying and disappointing. It could just be a lack of understanding or research – but it could also be a classic case of exaggerating details that promote the author’s personal investments.

#2 The list is an opt-in service

Earlier this year I contacted the company (I made a write-up back then) behind the rankings, asking about why major blockchains like VeChain and Tron were not included. They told me that VeChain chose not to be included, and that Tron was to be included in their next ratings. Although the representative on the phone didn’t say it at the time, this strongly implies that there was a listing fee – which sharply throws into question the integrity of the rankings. Either way, having a global rating system that doesn’t include a number of key projects isn’t a very effective metric to be using.

#3 You are the target of the ratings

There’s a reason I almost never see this list get shared in my Chinese language groups – and that’s because the majority of people with experience in China would ignore a list like this. They could instantly recognize the corruptibility of a service like this –

Latest Posts