Scorecard

Answer a few accountability questions. The output is a transparency score you can copy into your own notes.

If you’re here via a 5starsstocks search, start by scoring what you can verify today — not what a platform promises it will publish later.

Score

0% (0/21)

Red flag zone: don’t outsource decisions

Time-stamped archive of picks existsCan you see what was recommended and when, without edits?Weight: 4Clear benchmark comparisonIndex/ticker, dates, and assumptions are stated.Weight: 3Methodology is meaningfully disclosedInputs + weighting logic + downgrade triggers are described.Weight: 4Risks are specific and prominentLiquidity, dilution, regulation, cyclicality are discussed clearly.Weight: 3Conflicts/affiliations are disclosedSponsored content, affiliates, and incentives are clearly labeled.Weight: 2Losing calls are shown like winnersNot hidden, not reframed, not deleted.Weight: 3Entry/exit rules are definedWhat counts as an actionable signal vs. commentary?Weight: 2

Notes (optional)

Capture links, screenshots, or specific claims you want to revisit.

How to use the result

80%+: still verify performance, but transparency signals are strong.
60–79%: promising, but focus on the missing high weights (archive + methodology).
40–59%: treat performance claims as unverified.
Below 40%: assume marketing is doing the work that evidence should be doing.

Want the reasoning behind each item? Read Methodology.