TE-FOOD

The world’s largest publicly accessible, farm-to-table food traceability system is moving to blockchain

[Short general description]: TE-FOOD is the world's largest publicly accessible, farm-to-table food traceability system. It's a ready product with live operation. Started in 2016, it serves more than 6000 business customers, and handles 400,000 transactions each day.TE-FOOD is the only fresh food ecosystem which integrates supply chain companies, consumers, and governments/authorities to improve food safety, eliminate food frauds, and decrease costs of the supply chain companies. TE-FOOD's main focus is on the emerging countries, which account for 60% of the world's population, but need massive technological disruption because of the level of distrust in their food supply chains.

 

[Main problems tackled]:

 

1) to make food industry more transparent 

2) to democratize the access to food related information as a common property 

3) to enable technology to become the „authority” 

4) o reduce the scale and effect of epidemics and food frauds in emerging countries all around the world 

5) to educate people through incentivizing conscious consumer behavior 

6) to help small farms to be more competitive 

 

[Main contribution proposal]:

 

Farm management tools - to help improving the competitiveness of smaller farms, TE-FOOD will provide an easy to use, mobile app based farm management application, which is integrated into the TE-FOOD B2B app. 

Blockchain utilisation - the data provided by the supply chain participants must be unmodifiable. Due to the significant distrust and suspiciousness among consumers, supply chain companies, and authorities (caused by several food frauds and corruption), only technically unalterable logistics and food quality data can provide credibility.

 

[Innovation]:

 

1) Food safety alerts - built into the whole process, and can be triggered by certain events

2) Reputation system - an internal reputation scoring system helps supply chain participants to rate their connected suppliers through their common business transactions. 

3) Supporting conscious consumer behaviour -  mobile app for consumers to check the history and food quality information of food products, and provides incentives to use it frequently.

 

 Traceability tools - Identification tools - B2B mobile app  - Back office tools - B2C consumer mobile app - Digital signage

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
3.50 / 5.00
Product
4.00 / 5.00
Token Economics
4.00 / 5.00
Business Evaluation
3.60 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
4.00 / 5.00

Analysis

Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
4
  • 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?
3
  • 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?
3
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
3
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
3
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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
3.77

Team

Member
Dr. Trung Dao Ha
CEO
Erik Arokszallasi
CEO
Marton Ven
CMO
Gergely Koves
Project Manager
Katalin Vereczkey
Food safety expert
Dr. Gabor Pajor
Food safety expert
Gabor Nagymajtenyi
BDO Leader, blockchain team
Istvan Szukacs
DevOps, blockchain team
Abraham Endre (Silur)
Chief Architect, blockchain team
Attila Szabo
Lead Developer, blockchain team
Daniel Csendes
Blockchain technology consultant
Tamas Biro
Mobile app developer
Miklos Csaszar
Senior software engineer
Gergely Mate
Software developer
Zoltan Vadovics
Software developer
Laszlo Szentmiklosi
Hardware/software developer
Bence Kadar
Database specialist
Gyorgy Varga
Senior IT infrastrucutre engineer
Jozsef Tatar
IT infrastrucutre engineer

Advisors

Endre Jobbagy
Blockchain and business advisor
Dr. Michael Patching
Independent Animal Welfare and Husbandry advisor

Updates

Title
Published at
TE-FOOD private sale results
8 months ago
TE-FOOD gets backing by Wolf Crypto
8 months ago
TE-FOOD is presented to the European Parliament in Brussels
8 months ago
TE-FOOD Airdrop — Be Fast, Don’t Miss It!
8 months ago
TE-FOOD Bounty Campaign Description
8 months ago
How we change our ICO to comply with regulations
9 months ago
TE-FOOD — Waltonchain comparison
9 months ago
TE-FOOD Gets a Foothold in Africa
9 months ago
TE-FOOD — Modum comparison
9 months ago
Why does TE-FOOD launch a Token Sale?
10 months ago
TE-FOOD and Ambrosus comparison
10 months ago
TE-FOOD and Wabi comparison
10 months ago
Token economy of TE-FOOD
10 months ago
Our partners (Due diligence series)
10 months ago
TE-FOOD signs partnership with Telenorma AG
7 months ago
TE-FOOD Token Sale Details
7 months ago
Token Release Update
7 months ago