All Questions

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?
 Just an idea.
 Specs, no product.
 Prototype / MVP
 Beta, Initial Rollout.
 Full working product.

Does this solution have a distinct edge?
 No. Worse than existing solutions.
 Meh.
 Average.
 Better than some / most alternatives.
 Blew me away.

Is it mass market or niche?
 Very few would use it.
 Attractive, but for specific groups.
 Can go either way.
 Can be attractive to wide variety of audience.
 Can be used by everyone.

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?
 Found many alternatives, easily.
 Found quite a few alternatives.
 Found some alternatives.
 Few to no alternatives.
 Stands out as a unique product.

Is there (patentable) innovation and intellectual property?
 No way. It's like patenting water.
 So many equivalent patents.
 Possibly patentable, difficult to protect.
 Probably patentable, possibly protectable.
 Already patented and protected.

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?
 No. Borders misuse / deception.
 Would work, no real advantages.
 Depends on other contingencies.
 Yes.
 Yes. Distruptive use.

Is it safeguarded against misuse and corruption?
 No. Easily manipulated.
 Can be manupulated with some skill.
 Didn't stand out either way.
 Issues are addressed and well.
 Very well protected.

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?
 No. Borders misuse / deception.
 Would work, no real advantages.
 Depends on other contingencies.
 Yes. Token use is fundamental.
 Yes. Value created by Token strategy.

Is the system actually decentralized (more than just the tokens)?
 No. Completey centralized other than the tokens.
 Not clear.
 Hybrid.
 Mostly or almost entirely decentralized.
 Fully decentralized.

Are necessary storage and/or mining solutions sufficently addressed?
 No, these are not addressed.
 Vaguely.
 Partly.
 Yes, in accordance with system requirements.
 Fully addressed with complementary solutions.

Does the solution contribute to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?
 No. And is possibly harmful.
 No, but not harmful.
 Possibly, but not significantly.
 Yes, potentially significantly.
 Yes, profoundly.

Does The Whitepaper cover all information
 No. Its a brochure.
 Covers some elements but not nearly all.
 Covers most key elements but there are a few holes.
 Covers key issues, well written.
 All key issues addressed coherently.

Is the Whitepaper easy to understand?
 No. I still don't get it.
 Difficult, techno / marketing babble.
 Readable, takes some time.
 Easy to read.
 Enjoyable.

Is the Whitepaper Transparent?
 No. Misleading.
 Unclear.
 Clear but leaves open questions.
 Candid.
 Candid, coherent and structured.

Does The Whitepaper contain a business plan?
 No. Its a wishlist.
 Some vision, less plan.
 Yes, but the plan is difficult to protect.
 Yes, clear and realistic.
 Yes, clear and promising.

Does the Whitepaper cover technologyical architechutre?
 No. Ignored them.
 Not enough.
 Some, unclear.
 Yes, clearly.
 Yes, clearly and convincingly.

Does the Roadmap have a Development Timeline?
 Nothing.
 Yes, but not defensable.
 Yes, but not full.
 Yes, pretty concrete.
 Yes, comprehensive and professional.

Is the development plan realistic, based on reasonable goals and timelines?
 No. Can't be achieved.
 Possibly, but very ambitious.
 Probably, optimistic.
 Yes, seems feasible.
 Yes, and problems are tackled in advance.

Does the whitepaper contain a larger, long-term vision?
 No. Can't be found.
 Replacing tactics for vision.
 Yes, to a degree.
 Solid vision.
 Capturing vision, comprehensive and consistent.

Does it seem as though a lot of know-how and experience went into the development plan?
 No. Novice.
 Partly, somewhat adolescent.
 Enough.
 Yes, skilled work.
 Yes. master level work.

Is the project currently sufficiently far along in its development plan (relative to its vision and plans)?
 No, all vision, no alignment.
 Critical obstacles ahead.
 Getting there.
 Aligned with the current plan.
 Coordinated with the full development plan.

Is there a concrete business plan (vs. market descriptions, general sentiments, and fluff)?
 No. Nothing.
 Yes, but elementary and superficial.
 Yes, to a degree.
 Yes, pretty concrete.
 Yes, comprehensive and professional.

Is the business model realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?
 No. Can't be achieved.
 Possibly, but very ambitious.
 Yes, however optimistic.
 Yes, Seems Feasbile.
 Yes, and problematic issues are hammered in advance.

Are the solution's revenue streams, profit mechanisms, key KPIs, etc. clear and easy enough to understand?
 No. Can't be found.
 Somewhat. Not enough.
 Yes, to a degree.
 Yes, Seems Feasbile.
 Yes, and problematic issues are hammered in advance.

Is the project raising an amount of money that makes sense given what it needs to reach profitability?
 No. Amount is detached from project.
 Range is too wide to tell.
 Yes, but with a risk of under / over funding.
 Yes, Seems Reasonable.
 Yes, Professional and well thought out.

Is it safe from legal, moral or investor abuse?
 No. These are almost expected.
 Not enough, can be abused.
 Probably safe, but possibly abused.
 Reasonably safe, abuse will require effort.
 Yes, safe and morally sound.

Does the token provide access to some useful service or utility?
 Not in the near future.
 Very limited; early proof of concept stages.
 Some; MVP+ with ongoing development.
 Distinctive use cases.
 A wide range or ubiquitous use cases.

Does the token function as a financial instrument (analogous to equity)?
 Solely, and with no active community participation.
 Primarily, and with little participation.
 Partly, with some participation.
 No; any financial gain is related to work done by the holder.
 No.

Is the issue of regulatory compliance sufficiently addressed?
 Not at all.
 Vaguely.
 In particular jurisdictions.
 Necessary measures are taken to ensure compliance.
 Strict compliance; or the token is not a security.

Has the company published a legal review?
 No, none.
 Insufficient or unprofessional.
 Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test score)
 Yes, professional.
 Yes, professional and top-tier.

Has the product or service been launched or deployed yet?
 No, still only a concept.
 No, should launch in a few months.
 There's a functional platform with a userbase.
 Yes, the platform has been deployed and is already in use.
 Yes, the platform is fully functional and in use, with a sufficiently large user base.

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?
 No, there is no registered company yet.
 Initial stages of formation.
 Company structure in place.
 Established with some fundraising history.
 Well established for a while, has raised significant funds.

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?
 No. Unknown people, no online profiles.
 Some, partial or fragmented information available.
 Have updated online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience.
 Have updated online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing considerable relevant experience.
 Well known, accomplished; profiles and contact info fully available.

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?
 No. There is no team, no real commitment, or no transparency.
 Partial or unclear involvement and commitment, or a very small team relative to plans.
 Core team assembled, sufficiently committed and transparent.
 Team fully assembled, committed and transparent.
 A skilled and balanced, fully committed team; transparent involvement of all members.

What is the level of presence, added value, and commitment of the advisory board?
 None, no reputable advisors.
 Few advisors of insufficient caliber or relevance.
 Essential advisory positions are filled.
 A well-rounded collection of experienced, commited advisors.
 Accomplished, committed, high caliber advisors, from varying fields of expertise.

Are there enough sufficiently experienced blockchain architects and developers on the team?
 No blockchain experience
 Close to none
 Some blockchain experience
 Solid blockchain talent
 Profound, proven experience with blockchain development

Are there enough sufficiently experienced non-blockchain developers on the team?
 No there are none
 There are one or two junior developers
 There is one senior developer
 There is senior experience for both front end and back end development
 There are superstar developers on the team, verified through reputation / github profiles

Are there enough sufficiently experienced business developers on the team?
 No, none or hardly any
 Some or partial.
 Sufficient.
 Extensive and proven.
 Exceptional.

Does the team have good legal counsel?
 Ignoring the legal aspect.
 Not clear.
 Necessary legal issues are addressed.
 Team has a legal advisor.
 Assigned legal position in the team.

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?
 No. Unrelated or irrelevant experience if any.
 Inconsistency between the team's experience and the project needs.
 Solid correlation.
 Experience matches the project's needs well.
 Experience meets and exceeds the project requirements.

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?
 No, very greedy / insufficient.
 No, somewhat greedy / insufficient.
 Pretty well balanced.
 Well suited to needs and plans.
 Fully thought out and planned.

Is the minimum raise reasonably enough to carry out the majority of the development plan? Are there raise amount dependent milestones?
 None; or no sense of what is actually necessary.
 Loosely related to concrete plans.
 Sensible and in overall accordance with plans.
 Fits what is necessary to achieve plans at each stage.
 Carefully planned with raise-dependent milestones.

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?
 No; it is not clear how the funds will be used.
 Use of funds only loosely defined.
 Reasonable, sensible allocation of funds.
 Use of funds is well defined and justified.
 Use of funds is carefully planned and fully transparent.

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?
 Company keeps most tokens and/or has unimpeded control.
 Company keeps most, with some strategic purpose.
 Sufficiently balanced.
 Most tokens are sold to the community, kept tokens are released gradually.
 Majority of tokens are sold to the community, kept tokens are released in accordance with development milestones.

Is the ICO well planned in terms of time, phases and scenarios?
 Novice
 Amateur
 Semi Pro
 Professional
 Elite

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?
 Not at all / bad feedback from the community
 Minor exposure and interest
 There is soical presence, but no outstanding interest
 Solid exposure and interest
 exceptional presence and interest