Comprehensive assessment of ICOs

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Cypherium, due to the lack of a marketing campaign, will have problems with rmarket acceptance.

High-level competition on the market by leading technology companies t, the market players have all the resources for replicating such business model, if its market acceptance will be fully confirmed.

Most solutions are only conceptually developed, i.e. there is no test net to proof concept.

The product development roadmap is devoid of useful information and noted timelines.

Blockchain specialist - Anker Chen - is not employed at Cypherium (according to LinkedIn)

The amount of tokens saved for the team - 35% seems excessive

The team does not have participants with successful experience in creating and scaling international business

The Cypherium team will receive 35% of all generated tokens, and there is any binding to KPI.

Due to 1 ETH = 200 cypher tokens during pre-ico and total amount of tokens the total token pool valuation around 100M ETH or $833M which is above the average valuation of the same stage companies (With an ETH price of $833).

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

AIDA aims to deliver mainly construction materials through its services. The supply chain of construction materials is considered as a capital-intensive industry and so the team has to take it into consideration.

There are several crypto startups in logistics that already raised money(Shipchain, Slogn). For instance, ShipChain raised 30M USD in by January 2018.

The sphere AIDA is entering requires taking into consideration the country-specific characteristics of supply chain. However, the team wants to expand globally but does not provide the expansion roadmap and target countries.

Currently, the MVP is not available, so it is not possible to test the product. Also, AIDA has no customers now.

The team says that they will use Blockchain for a faster settlement of trades between counterparties. However, the team will use Ethereum Blockchain which is not highly scalable and can only support 15 transactions per second.

The team aims to enter all CIS markets by Q4 2018 and expand to Americas in Q3 2019. However, the team has no previous experience of scaling any projects at the global level. Therefore, the provided expansion road map does not seem convincing.

Also, the problem of corruption in supply chain that AIDA tries to tackle is not globally common. That is why, the team has to rethink its main goal during global expansion.

CEO of AIDA (Nysanov Ualikhan) does not have strong previous experience in technology. Even though he has profile on LinkedIn, his previous experience is not clear.

IT Director's experience (Denis Goncharenko) cannot be verified using linkedin.

Several developers of the platform are still students and AIDA is their first experience.

To sum up, the whole team experience is not clear and there are strong doubts that they will be able to deliver everything outlined in WP.

AIDA will charge its customers 1%, while the average among competitors is around 15-20%. The team does not explain how this lower level commission will lead to profitability of the project.

AIDA aims to deliver mainly construction materials through its services. The supply chain of construction materials is considered as a capital-intensive industry. The team does not explain how they will avoid or optimize these costs.

The team does not clearly state how many funds they aim to raise. There is no information about neither soft cap nor hard cap.

The team does not state how many tokens they will issue.

AIDA will reserve 20% of tokens for the core team. This figure seems high and there is no vesting scheme for bonus.

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

It is extremely hard to enter to the market due to strong network effect.

Competition between content distribution platforms is enormous.

Target markets and client’s profile is not stated at all.

Product is not developed.

Blockchain technology makes content distribution process inconvenient for final consumers.

Product does not have clear focus on one type of content.

Roadmap shows, that at the end of the year platform has to be developed, which seems unrealistic.

Team do not have enough developers to reach roadmap

Team members lives in different location and work remotely

Founders have legal education and experience, as a result, white paper has detailed disclaimer and company registered in Giblartar. Team do not have any responsibilities to potential investors.

Content consumption market has extremely strong network effect.

Platforms without audience is not interesting for content owners.

Unless NKOR is only one content provider, project cannot protect IP.

Project is overvalued.

There is no monetization plan.

Expected fund distribution is not proved by any calculations.

Inconsistent information on website and white paper.

There are already tons of large players in the market, ranging from banking wallets (CitiPay) to Fintechs (PayPal, Venmo).

TON has direct competitors across different services the company would like to build – from messaging to decentralized VPN services.

As of Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanism, it’s also in several large Blockchain projects, including Ethereum, immediate roadmap.

The main product risk for TON is that many of the services have already been introduced by competitors and therefore might gain significant market share by the time TON launching its services.

As WhatsApp and Facebook messenger already have large market shares among western countries, it might be hard for the project to expand its market share in western countries.

All TON services are now only concepts and the characteristics of the final system may ultimately be very different from those claimed in WP, especially in terms of network bandwidth.

At the moment, the whole project team is involved in Telegram. Despite the fact that TON and Telegram are strongly interrelated projects, their development should be separated.

The model has a complex structure, and there is no prioritization of the selected directions. In this regard, it is not clear which direction of the development will be the main focus at early stages.

There is no data on the evaluation of economic effects of each of the indicated areas.

The given cost distribution is not detailed and only highlights the use of funds.

The price per customer might be significantly lower than $40 for WhatsApp, as there are many customers of Telegram among countries with oppressive regimes. That is why the valuation of the company is arbitrary.

Since the outlines of the TON and Telegram projects are very diffused, this can eventually lead to the fact that not the ICO participants, but the founders of Telegram will be the main beneficiaries of the sale process.

The collected funds will finance Telegram roadmap, which is in fact closely related to TON, but still a different project.

Highly competitive market of online advertising and social network

Strong network effect on both markets.

Project is going to become local player.

Product does not include blockchain-technology.

Less than 500 loads of mobile app throughout whole 2017 year.

Team consist of 33 people, which is too much for current stage.

Tech and R&D team consist of 18 people, but white label does not have technical part.

Roadmap of product does not include development of blockchain-based solutions.

Project is overvalued.

Second round of financing was less than the first one.

There are several Blockchain projects that do not have the same features as Origin Protocol but aim to create similar products and already gained public attention and raised money, such as District0x and Openbazar. District0x, which creates a network of decentralized markets and communities, has already raised 10M USD during ICO last August.

The market of protocols seems to be heavily dependent on the "first-mover advantage", as the protocols will grow faster if they are unified and comply with the current solutions on the market.

The team aims to create a complex product which requires vast amount of resources. That is why the feasibility of all the proposed features is unclear.

Origin Protocol will have to compete with large, established marketplaces across different industries. It is unclear if the team will be able to scale the project so that it will be possible to compete with companies like Airbnb, Fiverr or Uber.

Origin aims to expand its services globally but does not focus on any particular markets.

As the prices will be shown in fiat currencies but will be paid in crypto, which is way more volatile than the former one, it may lead to price differences. This can harm the customer experience.

The given roadmap is not enough detailed and only highlights some of the product development stages.

The team is spread between Colorado and California.

As the platform will require participants to deposit small amounts of token before creating a new listing or user profile, it might lower the attractiveness of the platform for the early users. As the users might be penalized if they falsely challenge legitimate listings or accounts, it may also decrease the attractiveness of the platform.

There is no information on how Origin Protocol will earn its money, so the commercial viability of the platform is not clear.

In the last 2-3 years, there have appeared a lot of carsharing operators who have taken over a part of the market in large cities.

The company was founded in 2014 and for this time could not take any significant share in the market.

In the database of the project at the moment there are only 974 cars distributed to 121 cities.

The website and the application have a primitive architecture and low quality UX design.

According to the similar Web service https://darenta.ru/ has an extremely low attendance, at the level of 3 thousand visitors monthly.

The project for years of existence (since 2014) has shown the dynamics significantly below the market.

The project reserves 31% of the tokens for team remuneration.

The team does not have participants with successful experience in creating and scaling international business.

The company points out as a competitive advantage that other services spend their funds or raised funds to purchase new cars in order of expansion. However, the information does not correspond to reality, since the operators of the carsharing use the car leasing scheme.

The company business model, by and large, is not unique. A similar one is implemented by a large number of competitors in the market.

Monetization is too biased towards paying fees for issuing cards and commissions for transactions. Firstly, it will not be possible to monetize low-activity users at the expense of service fees, and secondly, the need to pay in the beginning can scare off customers.

According to the DCF analysis presented on page 11 WP, the total investment requirement of the project is only 3 million rubles.

Data on the company's expenditure forecast does not correspond to the provided Road map of development. Indicators for some of the costs are much higher than those for competitors.

In 2017 the company attracted a seed round of investments in the amount of less than $ 20 thousand, which is ten times lower than the average volume of seed rounds (according to PitchBook), which can indirectly speak of low investment attractiveness of the project. Investments were made by the business angel Alexander Rumyantsev in exchange for 10% of the company - that is, the pre-money estimate was about $0,17M.

Hard cap of $ 60 million is seems extremely overestimated for projects in the segment due to dynamics of the development of the company since 2014 and the previous volume of investments.

Lack information about legal components of the ICO, which further increases the risk of investing.

The full-usage product will be ready only in the middle of 2019, as a result, competition level will be substantially higher

There are high regulatory risks in chosen market

Now there is no developed product

Project does not have focus at all.

FSBT tokens are not crucial for banking services.

Due to the fact, that most part of the project’s profit comes from commissions, FSBT is not involved in profit generation.

There is absolutely no information about income or costs from exchange and derivatives trading, rating agency business and ICO due-diligence, nothing about service for developers and income from developing the complicated ecosystem of developers.

Finance model is based on opportunistic assumption and take into account only part of the business

The team has unrealistically high expected income from trading (20%).

Commission income constitutes more than 70% of total income

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Larger market players are able to overcome the problem stated by Rightmesh more effectively with their vast experience

Not detailed market entry strategy

No prototype available for testing

The project is considered to be complicated enough and tries to overcome a global problem, such aims are too optimistic on the current stage of development

The obstacles may rise when buying cryptocurrency in developing countries that may be a barrier for Rightmesh

Generally the team combines the work under the project with work at another companies including CEO

The project includes serious technology implementation but the project suffers the lack of experienced technical specialists

Rightmesh uses too categorical speech concerning their competitors, government and blockchain projects highlighting an unfair situation with the Internet in the world and the uniqueness of Rightmesh’s concept without any constructive analysis. It seems that Rightmesh hopes to attract investors mostly on emotional level

Token utility for project functionality is not proven, so the token price rise stimulus is not clear

Low share of tokens for crowdsale – 30%, breaking market mechanism of setting the fair price for token

No financial estimation provided

Funds raised usage is not described in details so required funds may be unreasonable

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Tough competition with fintech and blockchain companies as well as with traditional banking

Tough competition with ETHs and their diverse product range leaving Globcoin basket lagging behind.

Lack of agreements with exchanges

No mechanism indicated of ensuring tokenholder’s returns.

No blockchain specialist is found in the team

Technical specialists do not have previous significant experience before entering Globcoin

Some members combine Globcoin activity with working at other companies what may result in softening the focus on ICO project.

Development strategy is based on Globcoin’s current products but the company does not disclose its previous performance results.

Lack of Revenue, Profit margin, Net profit and FCF forecasting

Team and consultants’ part in token structure is high and equals to 20%. Also their compensation does not appear to be related to KPIs

Transaction fees concept and forecasts stated are not described in clear way

Funds usage process and plans are not disclosed

High pre-sale discount (40%), that increases the risk of rapid token sell-offs after ICO start date and further falling token prices.

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks

Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks