Our rating is independent and it has been created for evaluating investment appeal. The rating methodology is based on a review of key project parameters — technology, concept, team and legal status of crypto assets. The projects are scored by 8 areas, which are in turn elaborated by a set of indicators and ratios.
The Product — details, peculiarities, structure, technical explanation, technical description, token usage, competitive advantages, whitepaper, timeframes, market capacity.
MVP (Minimum Viable Product) — prototype, rules and regulations, actual large-scale (not isolated) confirmation of relevance for the end (target) user of the project being created.
Founders and Team — the presence of key positions (CEO, sail director, CTO, marketing & PR director, business evangelist, lawyer, advisor), background check of all team members — their rating, experience...
Technology and Innovation — technical development level, usage of innovative methods in design, availability of production facilities.
Marketing and Social Media Impact — review of the marketing campaign, bonus programs, Bounty programs, number of existing users, media coverage, website traffic, social media and messenger activity, subscriber numbers.
Confidence and Stakeholders — availability of consultants in various areas, support by third-party organizations.
Business and Financial Model — token listing in the exchanges; existence, feasibility, objectivity of the project roadmap; justification of crypto funding instead of fiat funding; token security, structure of the coin value; existence of a complete financial model; SKU (stock keeping unit) economy calculations; disclosure of return on investment (ROI) figures in the project’s financial model, project profitability, rate of return, cash flow balance issues, procedure for participants exiting the project, model balance against equity withdrawal by the participants; confirmation of cash gap absence in the financial model; existence of sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, evaluation of the token value post-ICO; confirmed volume of fiat funds raised before the ICO.
Protection and Risks — influence of token holders on the project, measures to protect token circulation, existence of a smart contract, existence of a Bug Bounty program to find exploits and vulnerabilities; possibility of code borrowing, token removal or replacement.
Usually, all the data required to conduct the evaluation is available in public domain; but if we have any questions left, we also have a questionnaire with extra questions, which we send to the project team. And this represents another criteria for evaluating the project investment appeal — whether they respond or not. Rating accuracy and objectivity is further adjusted by «word-of-mouth ratings», where any independent user can register and leave their opinion and assessment of the project, after confirming their experience, qualifications and adequacy and passing moderation. Using this methodology helps separate truly working mechanisms from most scam projects.
Since objectivity is the main issue for all rating agencies (which is caused by the commercial component of obtaining the right results being deep-rooted in the brains of our fellow citizens), our approach to the problem is rating ICOs using blockchain technology. The blockchain is mightier than the sword in the hands of unscrupulous ICO scam artists!