ZeroState

Have you ever wondered about the practical use of emotional intelligence? As the ZeroState website states it may enable finding things on the Internet based on how we may perceive them to be. The Google DApp created by the projects team allows its users to review and create emotion based evaluations therefore promoting certain products. Through the interaction between the user and the products advertiser some interesting social needs might be significantly highlighted.

website link: https://zerostate.io/

1. Team

Sum of points: 4 /4 p.

a) Are the founder’s pictures shown on the website? Yes. 1 p.

b) Are the names and surnames of each available on the website? Yes. 1 p.

c) Are the Linked-in profiles given? Yes. 1 p.

d) Are the roles of each member of the team presented? Yes. 1 p.

2. Project management

Sum of points: 2 /3 p.

a) Is the way of managing the project adequate to its extent and will it provide efficient, effective and terminable execution? No information was given even when asked on Telegram. 0 p.

b) Is the proposed division of functions and tasks in the team that is managing the project optimal, allows for making crucial decisions in effective way and provide proper supervision on the progress of the project? Yes. 1 p.

c) Are knowledge and experience of respective members of the managing team in the extent of conducting R&D projects and implementing their results adequate and provide reaching goals that were presumed? Yes. 1 p.

3. Presentation of the product

Sum of points: 11 /11 p.

a) Is the Whitepaper given on the website? Yes. 1 p.

b) Informativeness of the content in the Whitepaper:

c) Is the description of target market of the project given? Yes. On page 7 of the Whitepaper. 1 p.

d) Is the difference between the implemented product in regards to the substitute given? It is given on page 3 and 4 of the Whitepaper. 1 p.

e) Are the KPIs of the project determined? Yes, it considers the potential amount of users in the coming years. 1 p.

f) Are the projected expenses in the project determined? Yes. 1 p.

g) Are the projected expenses logically justified by provider of the project? Given on page 20 Whitepaper. 1 p.

h) Is the Roadmap of the project given? Yes. 1 p.

i) Is Roadmap of the project logically justified? Yes. 1 p.

j) What is the stage of the products development? Complete working product 3 p.

4. Marketing / Social Media

Sum of points: 9 /9 p.

a) Is the account on Twitter created? Yes. 1 p.

b) Is the account on Facebook created? Yes. 1 p.

c) Is the account on Telegram created? Yes. 1 p.

d) Did the team answer the question on Telegram during 1 hour? Yes. 1 p.

e) Are there threads about the project on Github.com? Yes. 1 p.

f) Is Reddit account created? Yes. 1 p.

g) Are there threads about the project on medium.com? Yes. 1 p.

h) Are there threads about the project on bitcointalk.org? Yes. 1 p.

i) Is the video presentation available on the website? Yes. 1 p.

5. Specific information about ICO

Sum of points: 15 /16 p.

a) ICO start date: June 21, 2018 2 p.

b) ICO end date: August 31, 2018 2 p.

c) Amount of tokens in sale: 49,500,000 ZSC without evaluation

d) Soft Cap: 4,000,000 $ without evaluation

e) Hard Cap: 20,000,000 $ without evaluation

f) Token price: 1 ZSC = 0,00047 ETH 1 p.

g) Is there given problem that exists on the market that will be solved by this project? Yes, on page 4 of the Whitepaper. 1 p.

h) Is the project disruptive or evolutional? Evolutional. 1 p.

i) What are the functions of tokens existing in the project? “ZSC owners can create promotions on the app and receive feedback on their product to increase its ranking and sales.Users can get ZSC for their reviews and sell the tokens in the secondary market to advertisers or withdraw them from the system.” 1 p.

j) Is there currently a similar tokenized platform? There is none. 1 p.

k) Is the given solution decentralized, centralized or hybrid? Decentralised.

2 p.

l) Are the functions of the token already in use or will they be implemented in the future? They are already in use. 1 p.

m) Accepted currencies: BTC, LTC, ETH, USD.

n) Are there utility tokens in the project? Both — there are security and utility functions of the token given.

o) What is the jurisdiction of the project? Not given. 2 p. (Only if it’s a fully decentralised Dapp set up in blockchain) (total sum of: 5.13, 5.14, 5.15)

p) Is the utility of the token the same at different amount of work fulfilled by user? Yes. The price of ZSCoins is linked to the number of active users and ongoing promotions. 1 p.

date of analysis: 24.09.2018

To sum up the projects evaluation, its worth noticing the high score in almost any considered aspect. There were though few things that caused some doubt. It’s the case of the so called DApp, that usually within the blockchain community arises many questions. Some people call a given project a scam when the app doesn’t have any features that actually go for a fully decentralised application. In this project the app is a strong point because it matches perfectly the main idea of blockchain. For sure the ZeroState concept is an interesting one to catch up with in the future.

Total sum of points: 41 /43 p.

RATING: 9,5 /10.

Shivom Project

Shivom is a project that proposes a new system for genomic data storage. People using this platform can decide whether they want to share this data considering future scientific and medical development. Such a global, though individualized database, would allow research centers to conduct crucial research finding solutions to global health issues. Moreover users themselves can also take part in the latest initiatives to improve the overall healthcare system.

website link: https://shivom.io/

1. Does the project concern innovative fields such as: AI, IoT, Machine Learning, financial technologies, biotechnology, medical technology? Yes, among others the project implements: cloud computing, AI and IoT. Above all it concerns biotechnology and medical technology. 2 p.
2. Do the project’s managers plan a direct contact with scientific research centers/ scientific communities? Yes — the project aims a close collaboration with scientific centres for the overall healthcare system improvement. 1 p.
3. Is it a spin-off or spin-out company? Spin-off. 1 p.
4. Do the tokens enable the safe exploitation of property rights and the participation in the project by the scientific units? Yes. (Information on page 44 of the Whitepaper) The tokens ensure the safe storage of data and the users anonymity. It allows organizations e.g. to support projects that investigate in rare health issue solutions. 1 p.
5. Does the project has a patent product in its offer?

-

This aspect doesn’t apply- therefore it is not considered for the evaluation of the project. The patent potential product is currently undergoing its patent process. All information involved is for the given moment of a confidential value.

7. Rating based on the TRL scale. (Technology Readiness Level)

Sum of points: 3 /5 p.

a)Basic principles and assumptions of a given phenomenon were observed, new technology concepts (TRL 1) 1 p.

b)The technology concept was formulated: defined issue, analytical tools made for testing (TRL 2) 1 p.

c)Alpha version or Proof of Concept, preliminary testing and the verification confirming the validity of the concept (TRL 3–4) Proof of concept. 1 p.

d)testing in a close-to-real environment, demonstration of the prototype already in the operational environment (TRL 5–8) 0 p.

e)Beta,mvp; full readiness after testing, working product (TRL 9) 0 p.

8. Evaluation of the intellectual good; significance for the scientific progress:
Is the project dedicated to a wider group of users and is it focused on the mutual interaction between both? The ability to adapt to different customer needs; Does the project desire to improve the environment, health, general security?

One of the aims of the analyzed project is to improve people’s health all around the world on a global scale. Furthermore there is a proposal of a solution for the cybersecurity issue considering users databases given. 1 p.

9. The significance of project’s R&D activities in the market context.

It is given. (pages 11–13 Whitepaper) 1 p.

Summary

The above presented analysis highlights interesting aspects of the Shivom Project that impacts the potential for future development on a greater scale. The close cooperation amongst various scientific fields such as biotechnology, cybersecurity and AI allows the direct implementation of the latest technology. The wide range of application enhances the process of creating more diversified medical assesments. In this way the customers’ general life quality might be significantly improved. Another point worth mentioning are the benefits coming from the constant exchange of information between the user and the scientist that run the application of innovations by itself in a systematic way.

Total sum of points: 11 /13.

RATING: 8,5 /10

Date of analysis: 24.08.2018

And now something for the lovers of…

…love. Viola.ai takes challenges that exist within human relationships. With help comes artificial intelligence. A tool developed by the team members will suggest doing determined actions both by singles and by couples on a different stage in their relationships. It is a popular combination: AI and blockchain. Let’s see how it will work out in this project by going through the business analysis.

You can check our scoring methodology right here:

Business evaluation of a project; scoring methodology

ICO’s website: https://viola.ai/

1.Team

Result: 4 points out of 4 possible

1.1. Are the founder’s pictures shown on the website? Yes, they are. 1 p.

1.2. Are the name and surname of each available on the website? Yes, they are. 1 p.

1.3. Are the Linked-in profiles given? Yes, they are.1 p.

1.4. Are the roles of each member of the team presented? Yes, they are. 1 p.

2. Project management

Result: 3 points out of 3 possible

2.1. Is the way of managing the project adequate to its extent and will it provide efficient, effective and terminable execution? Yes, it is. 1 p.

2.2. Is the proposed division of functions and tasks in the team that is managing the project optimal, allows for making crucial decisions in effective way and provide proper supervision on the progress of the project? Yes, it is.

1 p.

2.3. Are knowledge and experience of respective members of the managing team in the extent of conducting R&D projects and implementing their results adequate and provide reaching goals that were presumed? Yes, they are. 1 p.

3. Presentation of product

Result: 9 points out of 11 possible

3.1. Is Whitepaper given on the website? Yes, it is. 1 p.

3.2. Informativeness of content in Whitepaper:

3.3. Is the description of target market of the project given? Yes, it is on the pages number 5 and 39. 1 p.

3.4. Is the information about differences between implemented product in regard of substitutes? Yes, it is on the page number 31. 1 p.

3.5. Are the KPIs of the project determined? There is KPI concerning increase of the number of users in the following years on the page number 39. 1 p.

3.6. Are the projected expenses in the project determined? Yes, they are on the page number 50. 1 p.

3.7. Are the projected expenses logically justified by provider of the project? Yes, they are. 1 p.

3.8. Is the Roadmap of the project given? Yes, it is on the page number 39. 1 p.

3.9. Is Roadmap of the project logically justified? Yes, it is. 1 p.

3.10. What is the stage of product development? Mvp. 1 p.

4. Marketing / Social Media

Result: 8 points out of 9 possible

4.1. Is the account on Twitter created? Yes, it is.1 p.

4.2. Is the account on Facebook created? Yes, it is. 1 p.

4.3. Is the account on Telegram created? Yes, it is. 1 p.

4.4. Did the team answer the question on Telegram during 1 hour? Yes, it did. 1 p.

4.5. Are there threads about the project on Github.com? No, they are not. 0 p.

4.6. Is Reddit account created? Yes, it is. 1 p.

4.7. Are there threads about the project on medium.com? Yes, they are. 1 p.

4.8. Are there threads about the project on bitcointalk.org? Yes, they are. 1 p.

4.9. Is the video presentation available on the website? Yes, it is. 1 p.

5. Specific information about ICO

Result: 12 points out of 15 possible

5.1. Date of beginning of ICO: 17th of June 2018. 2 p.

5.2. Date of end of ICO: 30 days after the beginning of ICO date in case of reaching Hard Cap. The final end of Ico date is 31st of July 2018. 2 p.

5.3. Amount of tokens in sale: 250 million. without evaluation

5.4. Soft Cap: 1 milion $. without evaluation

5.5. Hard Cap: 12,5 million $. without evaluation

5.6. Price of the token: 1 VAI= 0,20$ 1 p.

5.7. Is there given problem that exists on the market that will be solved by this project? Yes, it is on the pages number 6–8. 1 p.

5.8. Is the project disruptive or evolutional? Evolutional. 1 p.

5.9. What are the functions of tokens existing in the project?

Tokens enables exploiting the premium features, payment for goods and services, access to the content and advices, revenue share, advertising fee and other kind of rewards. 1 p.

5.10. Is there currently similar tokenized platform? Yes, it is. It is called Meetluna. 1 p.

5.11. Is solution decentralized, centralized or hybrid? Hybrid. 1 p.

5.12. Are the functions of token already in use or will be implemented in the future? They will be implemented in the future. 0 p.

5.13. Accepted currencies: ETH, BTC, USD.

5.14. Are there utility tokens in the project? There are both utility and security tokens in the project.

5.15. What is the jurisdiction of the project? Singapore. 2 p. (total: 5.13, 5.14, 5.15)

5.16. Is the utility of the token the same at different amount of work fulfilled by user? The functions of tokens will be used in the future. Due to this fact subpoint number 5.16 is unaffiliated to the evaluation. without evaluation

Summary

From the business point of view, Viola.ai is a really well prepared project. In all analysed categories it received a big amount of points — maximum in case of two first subpoints, which are the team and project management, whereas rest of them got almost highest scores: presentation of product 9/11, marketing/social media 8/9, specific information about ICO 12/15. Also the choice of jurisdiction, Singapur, is worth noticing, as well as the possibility of buying both security and utility tokens with cryptocurrencies and American dollar. In that we can presume that the team prepared reliably in legal terms, which for sure increases safety of the project,

Viola.ai raises subject that is often pushed away to the background in these rushed times. All presented matters make the project and its development worth watching carefully, as they are already marked with big dynamics.

Total sum of points: 36/42 p.

RATING: 8,6/10

Date of analysis: 23/08/18

A project that caught our team’s attention concerns a special material, called alumina nanofibers. Its properties can be applied in areas such as: metallurgy, aerospace industry, marine construction and maintenance. Patents used in Nafen’s project enable conducting research and development in the field of nanotechnology. The implementation of Blockchain technology concerning Nafen’s product may be used in various industries. The business and scientific analysis of the project seems therefore pretty compelling to delve into. This time we’ll take a look at the business side.

You can check our scoring methodology right here:

Business evaluation of a project; scoring methodology

ICO’s website: https://nafen.co/

1. Team

Result: 4 points out of 4 possible

1.1. Are the photos of authors shown on the website? Yes, they are. 1 p.

1.2. Are the names and surnames of authors shown on the website? Yes, they are. 1 p.

1.3. Are the Linkedin profiles of the authors added? Yes, they are. 1 p.

1. 4. Are the function of people in the team given on the website? Yes, they are. 1 p.

2. Project management

Result: 3 points out of 3 possible

2.1. Is the way of managing the project adequate to its extent and will it provide efficient, effective and terminable execution? Yes, it is. 1 p.

2.2. Is the proposed division of functions and tasks in the team that is managing the project optimal, allows making crucial decisions in an effective way and provide proper supervision on the progress of the project? Yes, it is.

1 p.

2.3. Are knowledge and experience of respective members of the managing team in the extent of conducting R&D projects and implementing their results adequate and provide reaching goals that were presumed? Yes, they are. 1 p.

3. Presentation of the product

Result: 11 points out of 11 possible

3.1. Is Whitepaper given on the website? Yes, it is. 1 p.

3.2. Informativeness of content in Whitepaper:

3.2.1. Is the description of target market of the project given? Yes, it is on the page number 28. 1 p.

3.2.2. Is the information about differences between implemented product in regard of substitutes? Yes, it is. Description of Nafen’s product is on the page number 6, description of competition’s products is on the page number 28. 1 p.

3.2.3. Are the KPIs of the project determined? Yes, they are. The KPIs concern the level of sales. 1 p.

3.2.4. Are the projected expenses in the project determined? Yes, they are on the page number 21. 1 p.

3.2.5. Are the projected expenses logically justified by provider of the project? Yes, they are on the pages number 25 and 26. 1 p.

3.2.6. Is the Roadmap of the project given? Yes, it is on the page number 24.

1 p.

3.2.7. Is Roadmap of the project logically justified? Yes, it is. 1 p.

3.2.8. What is the stage of product development? The product is complete. 3 p.

4. Marketing / Social Media

Result: 8 points out of 9 possible

Suboints 4.1–4.9: 0 p. — no, 1 p. — yes.

4.1. Is the account on Twitter created? Yes, it is.1 p.

4.2. Is the account on Facebook created? Yes, it is. 1 p.

4.3. Is the account on Telegram created? Yes, it is. 1 p.

4.4. Did the team answer the question on Telegram during 1 hour? Yes, it did. 1 p.

4.5. Are there threads about the project on Github.com? No, they are not. 0 p.

4.6. Is Reddit account created? Yes, it is. 1 p.

4.7. Are there threads about the project on medium.com? Yes, they are. 1 p.

4.8. Are there threads about the project on bitcointalk.org? Yes, they are. 1 p.

4.9. Is the video presentation available on the website? Yes, it is. 1 p.

5. Specific information about ICO

Result: 8 points out of 15 possible

5.1. Date of beginning of ICO: there is no information about this date. There is no information about this date. 0 p.

5.2. Date of the end of ICO: There is no information about this date. 0 p.

5.3. Amount of tokens in sale: 170 100 000 without evaluation

5.4. Soft Cap: 2 500 000€ without evaluation

5.5. Hard Cap: 14 000 000€ without evaluation

5.6. Price of the token: 1NFN = 0.1€ 1 p.

5.7. Is there given problem that exists on the market that will be solved by this project? Yes, it is on the page number 6. 1 p.

5.8. Is the project disruptive or evolutional? Disruptive. 2 p.

5.9. What are the functions of tokens existing in the project? Tokens enable exchanging them on the material that is manufactured by Nafen, selling them to persons or entities interested in buying it. 1 p.

5.10. Is there currently similar tokenized platform? No, it is not. 1 p.

5.11. Is solution decentralized, centralized or hybrid? Hybrid. 1 p.

5.12. Are the functions of token already in use or will be implemented in the future? They will be implemented in the future. 0 p.

5.13. Accepted currencies: Crypocurrencies and FIAT.

5.14. Are there utility tokens in the project? In the project are used both utility and security tokens.

5.15. What is the jurisdiction of the project? Estonia. 1 p. (total: 5.13, 5.14, 5.15)

5.16. Is the utility of the token the same at different amount of work fulfilled by user? The functions of tokens will be used in the future. Due to this fact subpoint number 5.16 is unaffiliated to the evaluation. without evaluation

Summary

For the first three rated aspects of the analysis (team, project management and presentation of the product) Nafen received the highest possible sum of points. It was also pretty close to perfection in case of marketing/social media. The project only looks a little bit worse when it comes to more specific information about ICO but this lower mark doesn’t significantly impact the overall, positive impression. The conducted analysis let us think that the team decently prepared its project from the business side and Nafen has a big chance of success.

Total sum of points: 34/42 p.

RATING: 8,1/10

Date of analysis: 24/08/18

A project that caught our team’s attention concerns a special material, called alumina nanofibers. Its properties can be applied in areas such as: metallurgy, aerospace industry, marine construction and maintenance. Patents used in Nafen’s project enable conducting research and development in the field of nanotechnology. The implementation of Blockchain technology concerning Nafen’s product may be used in various industries. The business and scientific analysis of the project seems therefore pretty compelling to delve into. This time we’ll take a look at the scientific side.

You can check our scoring methodology right here:

Scientific evaluation of a project; scoring methodology

ICO’s website: https://nafen.co/

1. Team

1.Does the project concern innovative fields such as: AI, IoT, Machine Learning, financial technologies, biotechnology, medical technology?

Nanofibers proposed by Nafen can be used as structural carriers for biotechnology and medicine. The product might be useful when it comes to electronics industry and advanced material engineering. The project combines also IoT with Blockchain technology. 2 p.

2. Do the project’s managers plan a direct contact with scientific research centers/ scientific communities? Yes. 1 p.

3. Is it a spin-off or spin-out company? Spin-off. 2 p.

4. Do the tokens enable the safe exploitation of property rights and the participation in the project by the scientific units? Yes. 1 p.

5. Does the project has a patent product in its offer? (points: a and b are the follow-ups if the answer is positive)

It has — the list of patent products is in the Whitepaper on page 11. Other potential future products are still under the ongoing patent process in the US Patent Office. 1 p.

Sum of points: 3 /3 p.

a) If there is a patent in the project’s offer- does it have the additional necessary legal protection ? Yes, information is available on page 11 and 12 (Whitepaper). 1 p.

b) Is there an explanation of the patent usage? Yes. (e.g. page 27, 28 of the Whitepaper) 1 p.

6. Rating based on the TRL scale. (Technology Readiness Level)

Sum of points: 5 /5 p.

1. Basic principles and assumptions of a given phenomenon were observed, new technology concepts (TRL 1) 1 p.
2. The technology concept was formulated: defined issue, analytical tools made for testing (TRL 2) 1 p.
3. Alpha version or Proof of Concept, preliminary testing and the verification confirming the validity of the concept (TRL 3–4) 1 p.
4. testing in a close-to-real environment, demonstration of the prototype already in the operational environment (TRL 5–8) 1 p.
5. Beta,mvp; full readiness after testing, working product (TRL 9) The product is already an existing nano material. 1 p.

7. Evaluation of the intellectual good; significance for the scientific progress:
Is the project dedicated to a wider group of users and is it focused on the mutual interaction between both? The ability to adapt to different customer needs; Does the project desire to improve the environment, health, general security?

Materials with more advanced properties enhance the products durability thus reducing the dependency on raw materials. It helps in waste reduction and increases fuel economy. (page 27; Whitepaper) 1 p.

8. The significance of project’s R&D activities in the market context.

Is given- the usage of NAFEN™ improves mechanical properties: it increases the high- temperature resistance and is cost-effective due to simple implementation technology. Promising markets that may profit from collaboration: Plastics, Concretes, 3D printing, and Catalysts.(page 28 Whitepaper) 1 p.

Total sum of points: 16/16.

RATING: 10/10

Analysis from: 28/08/18

1.Does the project concern innovative fields such as: AI, IoT, Machine Learning, financial technologies, biotechnology, medical technology?

1 p. — 1 field

2 p. — 2 fields and more

2. Do the project’s managers plan a direct contact with scientific research centers/ scientific communities?

0 p. — no

1 p. — yes

3. Is it a spin-off (with the engagement of a scientific unit) or spin-out (only with the participation of actual or post scientific workers) company?

1 p. — spin-out

2 p. — spin-off

4. Do the tokens enable the safe exploitation of property rights and the participation in the project by the scientific units?

0 p. — no

1 p. — yes

5. Does the project has a patent product in its offer? (points: a and b are the follow-ups if the answer is positive)

Maximum points to score: 3 p.

0 p. — doesn’t have

1 p. — has

a) If there is a patent in the project’s offer- does it have the additional necessary legal protection (e.g. intellectual properties)? 1 p.

b) Is there an explanation of the patent usage? 1 p.

6. Rating based on the TRL scale. (Technology Readiness Level)

Maximum points to score: 5 p.

1. Basic principles and assumptions of a given phenomenon were observed, new technology concepts (TRL 1) 1 p.
2. The technology concept was formulated: defined issue, analytical tools made for testing (TRL 2) 1 p.
3. Alpha version or Proof of Concept, preliminary testing and the verification confirming the validity of the concept (TRL 3–4) 1 p.
4. testing in a close-to-real environment, demonstration of the prototype already in the operational environment (TRL 5–8) 1 p.
5. Beta,mvp; full readiness after testing, working product (TRL 9) 1 p.

7. Evaluation of the intellectual good; significance for the scientific progress:
Is the project dedicated to a wider group of users and is it focused on the mutual interaction between both? The ability to adapt to different customer needs; Does the project desire to improve the environment, health, general security? 1 p.

8. The significance of project’s R&D activities in the market context.

0 p. — is not given

1 p. — is given

Total sum of points to score: 16.

Here we are! Our team’s first analysis!

Due to the increased popularity of Artificial Intelligence — we took Kepler Technologies project under consideration. Its aim is to put into practise those concepts that are especially connected with the latest technologies. Teams that build a network on this platform may profit by merging different creative ideas with the available intellectual resources. Hence new projects that refer to AI or Robotics are more likely to develop. The projects purpose is a brave attempt to join the trends of the global high-tech markets.

You can check our scoring methodology right here:

Business evaluation of a project; scoring methodology

ICO’s website: https://keplertek.io/

1. Team

Sum of points: 4/4 p.

1.1. Are the founder’s pictures shown on the website? Yes. 1 p.

1.2. Are the name and surname of each available on the website? Yes. 1 p.

1.3. Are the Linked-in profiles given? Yes. 1 p.

1.4. Are the roles of each member of the team presented? Yes. 1 p.

2. Project’s management

Sum of points: 1/3 p.

2.1. Is the way of managing the project adequate to its purpose and will it provide efficient, effective and terminable execution? The way of managing the project was not given, despite the contact attempt via Telegram. 0 p.

2.2. Is the proposed division of functions and tasks in the team that is managing the project optimal, allows for making crucial decisions in effective way and provide proper supervision on the progress of the project? No information about the management methods- we can’t assume whether the division of functions and tasks in the team is optimal. 0 p.

2.3. Are knowledge and experience of respective members of the managing team in the extent of conducting R&D projects and implementing their results adequate and provide reaching goals that were presumed? Yes. 1 p.

3. Product presentation

Sum of points: 8/11 p.

3.1. Is the Whitepaper given on the website? Yes. 1 p.

3.2. Informativeness of the content in the Whitepaper:

3.2.1. Is the description of the target market given? The value of the robotics market is equal to the sum of 80 billion $. 1 p.

3.2.2. Is the difference between the implemented product in regards to the substitute given? Yes, on page 6. 1 p.

3.2.3. Are the KPIs of the project determined? No. 0 p.

3.2.4. Are the projected expenses in the project determined? Yes, on pages 29–30. 1 p.

3.2.5. Are the projected expenses logically justified by provider of the project? Yes, on page 30. 1 p.

3.2.6. Is the Roadmap of the project given? Yes, on page 27. 1 p.

3.2.7. Is Roadmap of the project logically justified? Yes. 1 p.

3.2.8. What is the stage of the products development? Mvp. 1 p.

4. Marketing / Social Media

Sum of points: 9/9 p.

4.1. Is the account on Twitter created? Yes. 1 p.

4.2. Is the account on Facebook created? Yes. 1 p.

4.3. Is the account on Telegram created? Yes. 1 p.

4.4. Did the team answer within 1 hour on the Telegram’s social group? Yes. 1 p.

4.5. Are there threads about the project on Github.com? Yes. 1 p.

4.6. Is Reddit account created? Yes. 1 p.

4.7. Are there threads about the project on medium.com? Yes. 1 p.

4.8. Are there threads about the project on bitcointalk.org? Yes. 1 p.

4.9. Is the video presentation available on the website? Yes. 1 p.

5. Specific information about the ICO

Sum of points: 8/15 p.

5.1. ICO start date: June/July 2018. 1 p.

5.2. ICO end date: June/July 2018. 1 p.

5.3. Amount of tokens in sale: Max. 100 mln KEP. without evaluation

5.4. Soft Cap: 5 mln USD. without evaluation

5.5. Hard Cap: 15 mln USD. without evaluation

5.6. Token price: 1 KEP = 0,05 $. 1 p.

5.7. Is there given problem that exists on the market that will be solved by this project? Yes, pages 5, 6 in Whitepaper. 1 p.

5.8. Is the project disruptive or evolutional? Evolutional because it is a natural repercussion of the Blockchain, AI and Machine Learnings development. 1 p.

5.9. What are the functions of tokens existing in the project? It allows payments via Ethereum blockchain, it gives the access to the Kepler’s services. In the future this might be a crucial factor when it comes to the fundraising for high-tech, robotics and artificial intelligence. 1 p.

5.10. Is there currently a similar tokenized platform? Magnus is a platform that is more focused on investors/ organizations and it provides a better access to the robots itself and the AI technology. Another platform — Kambria gives the opportunity for collaboration in research and development activities, the production and commercialization of the technology connected to AI and robotics. 0 p.

5.11. Is the given solution decentralized, centralized or hybrid? Hybrid. 1 p.

5.12. Are the functions of the token already in use or will they be implemented in the future? They will be in use in the future. 0 p.

5.13. Accepted currencies: BTC and ETH.

5.14. Are there utility tokens in the project? Yes.

5.15. What is the jurisdiction of the project? Georgia. 1 p. (sum of: 5.13, 5.14, 5.15)

5.16. Is the utility of the token the same at different amount of work fulfilled by user? The token functions will be implemented in the future, therefore this aspect doesn’t apply and it is not considered for the evaluation of the project. without evaluation

Summary

The above analysis refers to 5 aspects: team evaluation, project’s management system, product presentation, marketing and social media activities, as well as specific information about ICO. Kepler Technologies scored the highest at points 1 and 4. Therefore we can assume that the team and marketing are strong aspects of the project. It’s worth mentioning that the presentation of the product was also on a high level. The projects founders did not give any details about the projects management system, which could be of importance for investors. Due to that fact, it won’t harm to look upon this aspect in the future. In the section: “Specific information about the ICO” Kepler Technologies scored more than a half of the points available. It confirms the still early stage of projects development, which all in all tends to go into a promising direction.

Total sum of points: 30/42 p.

RATING: 7,1/10

Date of analysis: 31/07/2018

1.Team

Maximum points to obtain: 4 p.

Subpoints 1.1 — 1.4: 0 p. — no; 1 p. — yes.

1.1. Are the founder’s pictures shown on the website? 1 p.

1.2. Are the names and surnames of each available on the website? 1 p.

1.3. Are the Linked-in profiles given? 1 p.

1.4. Are the roles of each member of the team presented? 1 p.

2. Project management

Maximum points to obtain: 3 p.

Subpoint 2.1: 0 p. — inadequate, no information given; 1 p. — yes. (lack of KPI — no use of PMI in the project, SCRUM; Agile)

Subpoint 2.2: 0 p. — suboptimal, no information given ; 1 p. — yes.

Subpoint 2.3: 0 p. — no, 1 p. — yes.

2.1. Is the way of managing the project adequate to its extent and will it provide efficient, effective and terminable execution? 1 p.

2.2. Is the proposed division of functions and tasks in the team that is managing the project optimal, allows for making crucial decisions in effective way and provide proper supervision on the progress of the project? 1 p.

2.3. Are knowledge and experience of respective members of the managing team in the extent of conducting R&D projects and implementing their results adequate and provide reaching goals that were presumed? 1 p.

3. Presentation of product

Maximum points to obtain: 11 p.

Subpoint 3.1: 0 p. — no, 1 p. — yes.

Subpoints 3.2.1–3.2.7: 0 p. — no, 1 p. — yes.

Subpoint 3.2.8.: 0 p. — lack of product, 1 p. — mvp, 3 p. — complete product.

3.1. Is the Whitepaper given on the website? 1 p.

3.2. Informativeness of the content in the Whitepaper:

3.2.1. Is the description of target market of the project given? 1 p.

3.2.2. Is the difference between the implemented product in regards to the substitute given? 1 p.

3.2.3. Are the KPIs of the project determined? 1 p.

3.2.4. Are the projected expenses in the project determined? 1 p.

3.2.5. Are the projected expenses logically justified by provider of the project? 1 p.

3.2.6. Is the Roadmap of the project given? 1 p.

3.2.7. Is Roadmap of the project logically justified? 1 p.

3.2.8. What is the stage of the products development? 3 p.

4. Marketing / Social Media

Maximum points to obtain: 9 p.

Suboints 4.1–4.9: 0 p. — no, 1 p. — yes.

4.1. Is the account on Twitter created? 1 p.

4.2. Is the account on Facebook created? 1 p.

4.3. Is the account on Telegram created? 1 p.

4.4. Did the team answer the question on Telegram during 1 hour? 1 p.

4.5. Are there threads about the project on Github.com? 1 p.

4.6. Is Reddit account created? 1 p.

4.7. Are there threads about the project on medium.com? 1 p.

4.8. Are there threads about the project on bitcointalk.org? 1 p.

4.9. Is the video presentation available on the website? 1 p.

5. Specific information about ICO

Maximum points to obtain: 16 p.

Subpoints 5.1, 5.2: 0 p. — no date given, 1 p. — estimated date, 2 p. — accurate date.

Subpoints 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 are unaffiliated to the evaluation.

Subpoint 5.6: 0 p. — no price given, 1 p. — price is given.

Subpoint 5.7: 0 p. — no, 1 p. — yes.

Subpoint 5.8: 1 p. — evolutional, 2 p. — disruptive.

Subpoint 5.9: 0 p. — no functions given, 1 p. — functions are given.

Subpoint 5.10: 0 p. — similar platforms exist, 1 p. — there are no similar platforms.

Subpoint 5.11: 0 p. — centralized, 1 p. — hybrid, 2 p. — decentralized.

Subpoint 5.12: 0 p. — tokens are still not in use, 1 p. — tokens already in use.

Subpoints 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 are evaluated together: 0 p. — no jurisdiction given + security token or/and FIAT currencies are accepted; 1 p. — lack of jurisdiction + utility token + FIAT currencies are accepted; 1 p. — jurisdiction among others: Seychelles, the Cayman Islands, Belize, Panama, Lithuania, Estonia, Cyprus, Hong Kong; 2 p. — jurisdiction among others: the USA, Switzerland, Malta, Singapore, Gibraltar; 2 p. — no jurisdiction given + utility token + payments are accepted in cryptocurrencies.

Subpoint 5.16: 0 p. — no; 1 p. — yes.

5.1. ICO start date: 2 p.

5.2. ICO end date: 2 p.

5.3. Amount of tokens in sale: without evaluation

5.4. Soft Cap: without evaluation

5.5. Hard Cap: without evaluation

5.6. Token price: 1 p.

5.7. Is there given problem that exists on the market that will be solved by this project? 1 p.

5.8. Is the project disruptive or evolutional? 2 p.

5.9. What are the functions of tokens existing in the project? 1 p.

5.10. Is there currently a similar tokenized platform? 1 p.

5.11. Is the given solution decentralized, centralized or hybrid? 2 p.

5.12. Are the functions of the token already in use or will they be implemented in the future? 1 p.

5.13. Accepted currencies:

5.14. Are there utility tokens in the project?

5.15. What is the jurisdiction of the project? 2 p. (total: 5.13, 5.14, 5.15)

5.16. Is the utility of the token the same at different amount of work fulfilled by user? 1 p.

Total sum of points to obtain: 43.

RATING: 0–10.