Project Evaluation Methodology
When choosing a cryptocurrency exchange or wallet, access to accurate and transparent information is essential. At IZAKA-YA, we follow a “Trust First” philosophy and apply a proprietary evaluation framework to assess each project with a high level of rigor.
This page explains the specific criteria and scoring methodology we use to evaluate and rank cryptocurrency exchanges and wallets.
1. Purpose and Core Principles of Evaluation
Our evaluation approach is designed to help users find platforms that allow them to manage and trade cryptocurrencies safely and efficiently.
Objectivity and transparency: All evaluations are conducted independently and are not influenced by advertisers or external parties.
Risk visibility: We go beyond surface-level specifications and examine underlying risk factors, including past security incidents and operational practices.
Ongoing monitoring: Given the fast-moving nature of the crypto industry, we regularly update our data and review scores to reflect the latest developments.
2. Evaluation Criteria for Cryptocurrency Exchanges
Exchanges are evaluated based on the following five key pillars (total: 100%):
Security and reliability (30%)
Regulatory compliance and operational structure (20%)
Fees and cost efficiency (20%)
Trading environment and liquidity (15%)
Usability and support (15%)
2-1. Security and Reliability (30%)
The highest priority is the safety of user assets.
Asset management: Cold storage ratio, use of multi-signature wallets, and whether Proof of Reserves (PoR) is publicly disclosed.
Past incidents: History of hacks or breaches, and the speed and effectiveness of compensation and response.
Account protection: Implementation of security features such as two-factor authentication (2FA), withdrawal whitelists, and biometric authentication.
2-2. Regulatory Compliance and Operational Structure (20%)
We assess the legal and operational foundations that support long-term reliability.
Licensing status: Authorization from regulatory bodies such as Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) and other global regulators.
KYC/AML practices: The robustness of Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) procedures.
Financial strength and transparency: The financial standing of the operating entity and its approach to disclosure.
2-3. Fees and Cost Efficiency (20%)
We evaluate the true cost of trading to determine whether users can maximise their returns.
Trading fees: Maker and taker fee levels.
Deposit and withdrawal costs: Fees for both fiat and cryptocurrency transactions.
Hidden costs: Spread size and any additional fees under specific trading conditions.
2-4. Trading Environment and Liquidity (15%)
We assess the core infrastructure required for efficient trading.
Liquidity and execution quality: Order book depth, slippage frequency, and the presence of wash trading.
Asset coverage: Whether the platform offers a sufficient range of assets, from major cryptocurrencies to altcoins.
Available services: Features beyond spot trading, such as staking, lending, and IEOs.
2-5. Usability and Support (15%)
We evaluate whether the platform can be used smoothly by users of all experience levels.
UI/UX design: Ease of use and responsiveness across desktop and mobile applications.
Customer support: Availability of local language support, response time, and quality of assistance.
Deposit and withdrawal speed: Time required from request to completion.
3. Evaluation Criteria for Cryptocurrency Wallets
Wallets are evaluated based on the following four key pillars (total: 100%). Weighting may vary depending on whether the wallet is hardware-based or software-based.
Security and technical robustness (40%)
Supported chains and ecosystem compatibility (25%)
UI/UX and ease of use for beginners (20%)
Additional features and extensibility (15%)
3-1. Security and Technical Robustness (40%)
We rigorously assess the security and resilience required for self-custody (non-custodial) solutions.
Development and audits: Whether the wallet is open-source and subject to regular third-party security audits.
Encryption and signing technologies: Use of technologies such as MPC (multi-party computation), biometric authentication, and secure chips (for hardware wallets).
Recovery mechanisms: Security and reliability of seed phrase backup and recovery processes.
3-2. Supported Chains and Ecosystem Compatibility (25%)
We evaluate usability within the broader Web3 ecosystem.
Multi-chain support: Compatibility with major networks such as EVM-based chains, Bitcoin, Solana, and others.
DApp connectivity: Support for WalletConnect and usability of built-in dApp browsers.
Standards support: Ability to manage NFTs and custom tokens across different standards.
3-3. UI/UX and Ease of Use for Beginners (20%)
We assess usability to minimise the risk of user error and asset loss.
Interface: Ease of sending and receiving assets, and clarity in portfolio tracking.
Onboarding: Whether wallet setup is clearly guided and beginner-friendly.
Gas management: Clarity and usability when adjusting transaction (network) fees.
3-4. Additional Features and Extensibility (15%)
We evaluate added value beyond basic storage functionality.
Built-in features: In-app swaps, staking, and fiat on-ramp capabilities.
Physical durability: (Hardware wallets only) Device durability, water resistance, and overall design.
4. Scoring System and Review Updates
Scores from each category are aggregated into a final rating on a scale of 0 to 10. A normalization method is applied to prevent large-scale projects from disproportionately influencing rankings.
8–10 (Highly Recommended): Industry-leading projects with strong security, proven performance, and no material weaknesses.
5–7 (Average): Generally usable, but with some areas for improvement, such as features or fee structure.
0–4 (Not Recommended): Projects with significant security concerns or serious issues in liquidity, operations, or support.
Update Frequency
Scores are not static. At IZAKA-YA, we review and update evaluations under the following conditions:
Regular reviews: Conducted at least once every six months to update core data such as fees, supported assets, and UI.
Ad hoc reviews: Triggered by major events that may impact user decisions, such as security breaches, regulatory actions, or significant platform changes.
5. Independence and Disclaimer
IZAKA-YA’s evaluation and scoring process is not influenced by sponsorships or advertising agreements with any specific company or project. All content is reviewed through the “Human Filter” to ensure that information is presented fairly and without bias.
The information provided on this page and across the IZAKA-YA website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Any decisions regarding the use of services or investments should be made at your own discretion and responsibility. If you identify any inaccuracies, please contact us via the inquiry form, and we will review and correct them as appropriate.