Cryptectum

The blockchain real estate company

ICO Rating Analysis

Team Evaluation

2.50 / 5.00

Product

4.00 / 5.00

Token Economics

4.00 / 5.00

Business Evaluation

4.80 / 5.00

Hype and media presence

4.00 / 5.00

Analysis

Team - Founders:

Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?

1. Unknown people. No serious background information available.
2. Partial information available, no relevant experience.
3. Background information available, no relevant experience.
4. Solid, relevant background and connections available.
5. Solid, well known, experienced and well connected founders.

Team - Advisors:

What level of commitment, experience and connections do the advisers bring?

1. No reputable advisors with relevant experience.
2. Few advisors with little to no relevant experience.
3. Advisers with relevant experience.
4. Reputable advisors with relevant experience and connections.
5. High profile highly experienced, well connected and committed advisors.

Product - Technology Layer:

Is the product innovative? Does it contribute to the blockchain ecosystem?

1. No, the product is just a clone with no contribution.
2. The product is a dapp with minimal interest and little contribution to the ecosystem.
3. The product is a dapp, exchange or protocol addressing a real problem or need.
4. Innovative product offering a solution to a high interest problem.
5. Innovative protocol tackling critical problems of highest interest.

Product - Proof of concept:

Is the proof of concept comprehensive? Does it address a real problem or need?

1. No, incoherent concept or no need for it.
2. Difficult concept to understand, hardly any need or problem to solve.
3. Clear concept which addresses a real problem.
4. Clear, well thought concept which addresses a real problem of high interest.
5. Exceptional proof of concept addressing a critical problem.

Product - MVP:

Has the concept been tested? Is there an MVP? How far is the launch?

1. Untested concept.
2. Initial tests, no MVP.
3. MVP ready, Alpha launch.
4. MVP ready, Beta launch.
5. Fully working initial product.

Token Economics - Token utility:

Does the token have any utility? Is it a core function to the network?

1. No, the token has no utility.
2. Token has a limited, unclear utility.
3. The token has some added, but not inherent value.
4. The token is embedded in the network and has inherent value.
5. The token has both inherent and added value and is embedded at the core of the network.

Token Economics - Network effect:

Are strong network effects built into the system? Are incentives aligned to encourage the growth of the network?

1. No network effects built in.
2. Minimal network effects, unclear incentives.
3. Network effects and incentives present.
4. Solid network effects with clear incentives due to inherent utility.
5. Strong network effects, aligned incentives and high utility value.

Business Evaluation - Valuation:

Is the valuation reasonable ? Sufficient but not too high for the scope of the project?

1. No, the valuation is ludicrous, the project could do with 1/10 of the sum.
2. Valuation is higher than the project would need. Likely a money grab.
3. Valuation is reasonable for the scope of the project.
4. Valuation is modest for the caliber of the project.
5. Valuation is impressively modest relative to the high caliber of the project.

Business Evaluation - Market potential:

What is the market potential? Does the project look like it could penetrate the market and conquer the world?

1. No clear market potential.
2. Limited market potential.
3. Reasonable market and growth potential.
4. Solid market and growth potential.
5. Exceptional market and growth potential.

Business Evaluation - Competition:

Does the project have competition? How strong does it look relative to its competition?

1. Awful position competing with many strong players.
2. Weak position facing strong competition.
3. Reasonable position facing strong competition.
4. Solid position facing weak competition.
5. Exceptional position, facing almost no competition.

Business Evaluation - Supply sold:

Does the team distribute a reasonable amount of the tokens so as to encourage create strong incentives and network effects?

1. Negligible supply, greedy team.
2. Small supply, poor incentives.
3. Modest supply, weak incentives.
4. Reasonable supply, responsible team.
5. Large supply, solid inventive, committed team.

Business Evaluation - Vesting:

Does the team have a sufficient stake to have aligned incentives? Do they have a vesting schedule implemented?

1. Large stake, no vesting.
2. Small stakes, no vesting.
3. Modest stakes, no vesting.
4. Reasonable stakes, modest vesting.
5. Solid stake, healthy vesting.

Hype and media presence:

Is the project present on social media and chats? Is there interest for it?

1. No presence, negative image.
2. Modest exposure and no interest.
3. Reasonable exposure and modest interest.
4. Solid exposure and high interest.
5. Exceptional exposure, high interest and considerable hype.

Final Score

3.81

Team

Member

Advisors

Updates

Title

Published at

Published by