CannAvenue

CannAvenue is an artificial intelligence powered Blockchain platform for all stakeholders of the cannabis industry.

About CannAvenue

CannAvenue is a software as a service (SaaS) suite that utilizes Blockchain and patent-pending artificial intelligence solutions to streamline the processes of all stakeholders of the cannabis industry. Some of the primary components of the platform are CannInventory – a free to use inventory management service. CannTrade – a pay-as-you-use cannabis product trade platform for licensed distributors and retailers, and CannApp – A user-focused application that brings users together with retailers and medical cannabis professionals. All these are tied together using CannAI.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.0
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

How easy is it to read and understand the documentation, comprehend the project's goals and trajectory.

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

What stages are to be achieved, how are they to be carried out and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the token model and how well does it fit into the company's overall business model.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The solution description lacks detail and the token economics is not adequately discussed. The majority of the document is focused on presenting market research. Technical discussion is essentially nonexistent and the current stage of development is not addressed. Team information is available in the whitepaper and the project website. Legal content is provided.

Readability: Technical discussion is absent, which makes the document simple to read and concise.

Transparency: The company GitHub page is not provided. The current stage of development is not sufficiently discussed. On the FAQ section of the website, is stated that with respect to what has been accomplished by the organization thus far, that the company has “started developing the framework of the ecosystem”. Further details are not provided.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The primary software solution (CannInventory) will be free to use and the organization will “offer hardware if required, at a cost, which will be shipped to clients as per their specific requirements”. However, further details with respect to the hardware that the organization will provide are not discussed. The trading platform, CannTrade, will have a monthly subscription fee (unspecified), along with a 1% transaction fee.

The business development plan is fairly vague and asserts that part of the organization’s 5-year development plan includes the acquisition of companies from 5 sectors: Licensed producing facility for medical cannabis, Pharmacy, Walk-in clinics, Veterinary clinics, and Recreational cannabis retail stores.

The marketing strategy is fairly broad, where the organization states that it intends to “grow the community starting with the inventory management software, branded collaborations & partnerships, quality press relations, advertising, quality content propagation, and social media”.

Overall, the business development plan is available but lacks detail. The token model is not discussed adequately.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There is essentially no technical discussion included in the whitepaper. The use of blockchain technology is broadly discussed and the considerations with respect to the underlying blockchain infrastructure are not present.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief disclaimer included towards the beginning of the whitepaper which discusses the organization’s intention to release a SAFT, which at the time of review, is not publicly available through the project website. The document also contains the rights of actions for purchasers, which is specific to various provinces in Canada.

Documentation Market

Product

2.3
Product
Differentiation

What are the product's unique features / attributes / advantages? How is it different from other, similar products or projects? What makes it stand out or gives it an edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

Readiness of the full platform, including blockchain/smart-contract/token infrastructure; based on what's publicly available (not just claims).

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
Concreteness of Development Plans

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

What is the level of innovation and development particularly with regard to blockchain technology and its utilization? Do the project's blockchain-related developments have value beyond the company's particular platform or network?

3.0
N/A
3 - Specific, platform-related automation via smart contract functionality.

Product

Differentiation: There is a FAQ section on the project website and summarizes what the organization believes separates the project from its competitors with two main factors: most competitors haven’t developed a inventory management system on the blockchain and that most competitors don’t offer a cryptocurrency that can be realistically used for everyday purchases. Both points of differentiation are fairly weak and not discussed adequately.

Readiness: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. The company claims to have a patent-pending software solution and are currently working on the “framework of the ecosystem”, but specific details are not available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented in the whitepaper outlines the 5-year development plans of the company. Each year is accompanied with 2 milestones, with the exception of the first year, which contains 4 milestones. Technical milestones lack detail and primarily consist of “additional features and bug fixes” without further details. Business-related milestones contain some specific quantitative details, such as the client acquisition goals.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is currently in the first year (Phase 1) of the development roadmap. Thus far, the company has not reached any of the milestones set out in the roadmap which includes the completion of the beta version of the inventory management software and trading platform.

Feasibility: Based on the lack of information with respect to the current stage of development along with the fairly low levels of technical manpower available from the team, the feasibility of reaching the milestones set out in the roadmap are questionable, especially the goal to complete the trading platform and inventory management software in the first year.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

Product Company and Team

Market

3.2
Market
Target User Base

How big is the project's target user base, how large is its potential market?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
Direct Competition

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

How strong is the potential for disruption of the market sector due to the introduction of blockchain technology, as it is utilized by the solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform is primarily for clients in the cannabis industry, but also cannabis users. As the market research in the document indicates, the market for cannabis is expected to rapidly grow following the legalization of recreational cannabis use.

Market Penetration Potential: There is a market penetration potential considering the emergence of a new industry the organization’s strategy to allow free access to their inventory management software.

Direct Competition: Specific and thorough discussion regarding potential competitors is lacking. The whitepaper contains table which briefly outlines the features of CannAvenue and other competitors such as: BIOTRACKTHC, AMPLE ORGANICS, NUVUS, MJ FREEWAY. Only one of the aforementioned projects utilize blockchain technology.

Solution Advantage: The inventory management software will be provided for free. This separates the project from most other blockchain-powered inventory management solutions, where there is typically a cost associated with the platform. Furthermore, the organization claims to have a patent-pending solution for the platform.

Blockchain Disruption: The platform intends to bring forth benefits that are typical to most inventory management solutions. With the use of blockchain technology, transparency and auditability will be enhanced but due to the fact that cannabis is an emerging market as opposed to an established one, the potential for disruption is uncertain.

Long-Term Vision: The project aims to serve an emerging market while leveraging a brand new technology. The goals are fairly ambitious and the execution strategy lacks detail. This is especially evident with respect the lack of discussion with regards to the implementation of blockchain technology.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

When was the company founded, how mature is it? Has it raised significant funds? Where relevant, this should address the parent company. For reviewers (not for tooltip): Check company LinkedIn and Crunchbase profiles. Impression summary should list basic information such as founding date, location/s, previous fundraising rounds (via crunchbase), maybe number of employees (via linkedin).

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Team Assembly and Commitment

What is the structure of the team (core members, advisers, contributors)? Are all necessary positions filled or is the company still looking for key team participants? Are the team members fully committed to the project (or involved with other projects simultaneously)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

Are LinkedIn (or Github, or other professional) profile links provided, and do they show involvement in the project and relevant previous experience? For reviewers (not for tooltip): If the team is quite large, C-level and certain key team members (such as lead tech/blockchain developers) should be looked at, while other than that, a sample is fine (but this should be mentioned or reflected in the language ["It appears as though..."]).

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

How relevant are the team members' backgrounds and experience to the project and its requirements? Do they come from related industries and have in-depth knowledge of their respective fields?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Strategic Partnerships

What kind of launch partners and early adopters does the project have?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: CannAvenue is a privately-held company incorporated in Canada. According to the company LinkedIn page, CannAvenue was founded in 2018 and have their headquarters in Oakville, Ontario.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team is presented in the whitepaper and the project website. The team is structured as follows:

Peter Greco | Founder & CEO
Sean Shafer | Chief Technology Officer
Gaurav Areng Chakraverti | Chief Marketing Officer
Jamie Firsten | Legal Counsel
Genelle Keswick |Brand & Marketing Specialist
Umesh Chawla | Developer
Aaron Edgar | Legal Counsel & Patent Agent
Mac Killoran | COA, CA, Tax Advisor
Bryon Baker | Full-Stack Developer

The developer (Umesh Chawla) does not disclose his involvement with the project on his LinkedIn profile. Advisors are not segregated from the core team and do not show their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn page (Jamie Firsten and Mac Killoran).

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Prior work experience is available on the LinkedIn profiles of team members. However, the LinkedIn profile of the single full-stack developer is not included on the project website. At minimum, the rest of the team provide the job titles of previous positions, with most having some sort of description of the organization or their role with the company.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: There is some relevance to the prior work experience of the founder/CEO and the project. Peter Greco, the CEO, was previously an account executive and worked for Rogers Communications and Bell Mobility. However, Sean Shafer, the CTO (according to the project website, contrary to the individuals LinkedIn profile which is listed as Chief Information Officer) is concurrently the CTO for Lucre Org, a cryptocurrency payment solution for the gambling industry.

Team Skill Set Balance: The skill set of the team is skewed towards business development. Only one individual seems to have prior experience with blockchain technology development.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships are not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.5
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The value proposition of the token is discussed in the whitepaper with minimal detail. It is simply stated that the payment system “enables a cashless, transparent, decentralized network for everyone from the producers to consumers”.

Token Economy: 

Total supply: 5.2 Billion CANA

Specific earn/spend mechanisms are not outlined. Details of the token primarily pertains to how the tokens will be allocated. The fee structure is not outlined in detail.

System Decentralization: System governance is not specifically addressed. It is uncertain whether token holders receive voting rights. Data storage is not addressed.

Fundraising Goals:

Soft cap: $12,000,000 USD
Hard cap: $250,000,000 USD

The justification for the fairly high hard cap is not adequately discussed. It is stated that if the hard cap is reached, “the proceeds would deliver US$10,000,000 towards core software and hardware development, and the rest towards the expansion of CannAvenue business verticals and product line”. Further details are not provided.

Use of Proceeds: The fund allocation is as the following:

IT – 35%
Marketing – 30%
Working Capital – 20%
Legal & Security – 8%
Post-ICO Immediate Expense – 7%

The use of proceeds is briefly discussed (1-2 sentences) at various funding levels.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

75% – Sale
10% – Team, Advisors, Payments
10% – Reserve/Future+Ongoing Expenses
1.5% – Non-Profit Donation
1.5% – Raffle/Jackpot
2% – Partnerships

A significant portion of the token allocation is available of purchase during the token sale. It is stated that all unsold tokens will be burned. Vesting periods are not discussed.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The solution description lacks detail and the token economics is not adequately discussed. The majority of the document is focused on presenting market research. Technical discussion is essentially nonexistent and the current stage of development is not addressed. Team information is available in the whitepaper and the project website. Legal content is provided.

Readability: Technical discussion is absent, which makes the document simple to read and concise.

Transparency: The company GitHub page is not provided. The current stage of development is not sufficiently discussed. On the FAQ section of the website, is stated that with respect to what has been accomplished by the organization thus far, that the company has “started developing the framework of the ecosystem”. Further details are not provided.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The primary software solution (CannInventory) will be free to use and the organization will “offer hardware if required, at a cost, which will be shipped to clients as per their specific requirements”. However, further details with respect to the hardware that the organization will provide are not discussed. The trading platform, CannTrade, will have a monthly subscription fee (unspecified), along with a 1% transaction fee.

The business development plan is fairly vague and asserts that part of the organization’s 5-year development plan includes the acquisition of companies from 5 sectors: Licensed producing facility for medical cannabis, Pharmacy, Walk-in clinics, Veterinary clinics, and Recreational cannabis retail stores.

The marketing strategy is fairly broad, where the organization states that it intends to “grow the community starting with the inventory management software, branded collaborations & partnerships, quality press relations, advertising, quality content propagation, and social media”.

Overall, the business development plan is available but lacks detail. The token model is not discussed adequately.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There is essentially no technical discussion included in the whitepaper. The use of blockchain technology is broadly discussed and the considerations with respect to the underlying blockchain infrastructure are not present.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief disclaimer included towards the beginning of the whitepaper which discusses the organization’s intention to release a SAFT, which at the time of review, is not publicly available through the project website. The document also contains the rights of actions for purchasers, which is specific to various provinces in Canada.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

How easy is it to read and understand the documentation, comprehend the project's goals and trajectory.

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

What stages are to be achieved, how are they to be carried out and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the token model and how well does it fit into the company's overall business model.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.
Documentation Score:
3.0

Product

Differentiation: There is a FAQ section on the project website and summarizes what the organization believes separates the project from its competitors with two main factors: most competitors haven’t developed a inventory management system on the blockchain and that most competitors don’t offer a cryptocurrency that can be realistically used for everyday purchases. Both points of differentiation are fairly weak and not discussed adequately.

Readiness: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. The company claims to have a patent-pending software solution and are currently working on the “framework of the ecosystem”, but specific details are not available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented in the whitepaper outlines the 5-year development plans of the company. Each year is accompanied with 2 milestones, with the exception of the first year, which contains 4 milestones. Technical milestones lack detail and primarily consist of “additional features and bug fixes” without further details. Business-related milestones contain some specific quantitative details, such as the client acquisition goals.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is currently in the first year (Phase 1) of the development roadmap. Thus far, the company has not reached any of the milestones set out in the roadmap which includes the completion of the beta version of the inventory management software and trading platform.

Feasibility: Based on the lack of information with respect to the current stage of development along with the fairly low levels of technical manpower available from the team, the feasibility of reaching the milestones set out in the roadmap are questionable, especially the goal to complete the trading platform and inventory management software in the first year.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

What are the product's unique features / attributes / advantages? How is it different from other, similar products or projects? What makes it stand out or gives it an edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

Readiness of the full platform, including blockchain/smart-contract/token infrastructure; based on what's publicly available (not just claims).

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
Concreteness of Development Plans

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

What is the level of innovation and development particularly with regard to blockchain technology and its utilization? Do the project's blockchain-related developments have value beyond the company's particular platform or network?

3.0
N/A
3 - Specific, platform-related automation via smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.3

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform is primarily for clients in the cannabis industry, but also cannabis users. As the market research in the document indicates, the market for cannabis is expected to rapidly grow following the legalization of recreational cannabis use.

Market Penetration Potential: There is a market penetration potential considering the emergence of a new industry the organization’s strategy to allow free access to their inventory management software.

Direct Competition: Specific and thorough discussion regarding potential competitors is lacking. The whitepaper contains table which briefly outlines the features of CannAvenue and other competitors such as: BIOTRACKTHC, AMPLE ORGANICS, NUVUS, MJ FREEWAY. Only one of the aforementioned projects utilize blockchain technology.

Solution Advantage: The inventory management software will be provided for free. This separates the project from most other blockchain-powered inventory management solutions, where there is typically a cost associated with the platform. Furthermore, the organization claims to have a patent-pending solution for the platform.

Blockchain Disruption: The platform intends to bring forth benefits that are typical to most inventory management solutions. With the use of blockchain technology, transparency and auditability will be enhanced but due to the fact that cannabis is an emerging market as opposed to an established one, the potential for disruption is uncertain.

Long-Term Vision: The project aims to serve an emerging market while leveraging a brand new technology. The goals are fairly ambitious and the execution strategy lacks detail. This is especially evident with respect the lack of discussion with regards to the implementation of blockchain technology.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

How big is the project's target user base, how large is its potential market?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
Direct Competition

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

How strong is the potential for disruption of the market sector due to the introduction of blockchain technology, as it is utilized by the solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
3.2

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: CannAvenue is a privately-held company incorporated in Canada. According to the company LinkedIn page, CannAvenue was founded in 2018 and have their headquarters in Oakville, Ontario.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team is presented in the whitepaper and the project website. The team is structured as follows:

Peter Greco | Founder & CEO
Sean Shafer | Chief Technology Officer
Gaurav Areng Chakraverti | Chief Marketing Officer
Jamie Firsten | Legal Counsel
Genelle Keswick |Brand & Marketing Specialist
Umesh Chawla | Developer
Aaron Edgar | Legal Counsel & Patent Agent
Mac Killoran | COA, CA, Tax Advisor
Bryon Baker | Full-Stack Developer

The developer (Umesh Chawla) does not disclose his involvement with the project on his LinkedIn profile. Advisors are not segregated from the core team and do not show their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn page (Jamie Firsten and Mac Killoran).

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Prior work experience is available on the LinkedIn profiles of team members. However, the LinkedIn profile of the single full-stack developer is not included on the project website. At minimum, the rest of the team provide the job titles of previous positions, with most having some sort of description of the organization or their role with the company.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: There is some relevance to the prior work experience of the founder/CEO and the project. Peter Greco, the CEO, was previously an account executive and worked for Rogers Communications and Bell Mobility. However, Sean Shafer, the CTO (according to the project website, contrary to the individuals LinkedIn profile which is listed as Chief Information Officer) is concurrently the CTO for Lucre Org, a cryptocurrency payment solution for the gambling industry.

Team Skill Set Balance: The skill set of the team is skewed towards business development. Only one individual seems to have prior experience with blockchain technology development.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships are not evident.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

When was the company founded, how mature is it? Has it raised significant funds? Where relevant, this should address the parent company. For reviewers (not for tooltip): Check company LinkedIn and Crunchbase profiles. Impression summary should list basic information such as founding date, location/s, previous fundraising rounds (via crunchbase), maybe number of employees (via linkedin).

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Team Assembly and Commitment

What is the structure of the team (core members, advisers, contributors)? Are all necessary positions filled or is the company still looking for key team participants? Are the team members fully committed to the project (or involved with other projects simultaneously)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

Are LinkedIn (or Github, or other professional) profile links provided, and do they show involvement in the project and relevant previous experience? For reviewers (not for tooltip): If the team is quite large, C-level and certain key team members (such as lead tech/blockchain developers) should be looked at, while other than that, a sample is fine (but this should be mentioned or reflected in the language ["It appears as though..."]).

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

How relevant are the team members' backgrounds and experience to the project and its requirements? Do they come from related industries and have in-depth knowledge of their respective fields?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Strategic Partnerships

What kind of launch partners and early adopters does the project have?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The value proposition of the token is discussed in the whitepaper with minimal detail. It is simply stated that the payment system “enables a cashless, transparent, decentralized network for everyone from the producers to consumers”.

Token Economy: 

Total supply: 5.2 Billion CANA

Specific earn/spend mechanisms are not outlined. Details of the token primarily pertains to how the tokens will be allocated. The fee structure is not outlined in detail.

System Decentralization: System governance is not specifically addressed. It is uncertain whether token holders receive voting rights. Data storage is not addressed.

Fundraising Goals:

Soft cap: $12,000,000 USD
Hard cap: $250,000,000 USD

The justification for the fairly high hard cap is not adequately discussed. It is stated that if the hard cap is reached, “the proceeds would deliver US$10,000,000 towards core software and hardware development, and the rest towards the expansion of CannAvenue business verticals and product line”. Further details are not provided.

Use of Proceeds: The fund allocation is as the following:

IT – 35%
Marketing – 30%
Working Capital – 20%
Legal & Security – 8%
Post-ICO Immediate Expense – 7%

The use of proceeds is briefly discussed (1-2 sentences) at various funding levels.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

75% – Sale
10% – Team, Advisors, Payments
10% – Reserve/Future+Ongoing Expenses
1.5% – Non-Profit Donation
1.5% – Raffle/Jackpot
2% – Partnerships

A significant portion of the token allocation is available of purchase during the token sale. It is stated that all unsold tokens will be burned. Vesting periods are not discussed.

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Token Economics Score:
2.5
What is the current stage of development for each of the four components of the platform: CannInventory, CannTrade, CannTrade, and CannTrade?

We have a patent-pending on the algorithm we’re developing. Our MVP for CannInventory, CannTrade and CannPay, will be ready by Sept 25th the absolute latest.

The whitepaper discusses hardware solutions which will shipped to clients according to their requirements. What do these hardware solutions entail (including cost)? The primary components of the platform seem to be software-based.

For merchants that don’t have the necessary hardware to interface with our software, we can provide this if they wish (printers, hand scanners, security tags, etc). Starting cost for hardware is $5,000USD. Furthermore, merchants do not need to purchase hardware from us since our software is hardware agnostic. If a merchant already has the hardware, our software will be compatible with it and no additional fees will be charged. The hardware will be sourced from a 3rd party. The software is built in-house.

What are the specific plans for team development, specifically with regards to technical development roles?

We already have a Chief Information Officer that is leading the development (Sean Shafer). He has already identified the developers that will be working on the ecosystem. CannApp will have 3 developers. The remaining solutions (CannPay, CannInventory and CannTrade) will have 2 developers. We currently have 2 developers on staff and anticipate that the remaining 3 developers will be on-board by October.

Does CannAvenue incorporate decentralization with respect to the governance structure of the platform?

Yes we do. However, while we will have a decentralized ecosystem, we do recognize and are going to fully comply with any and all regulations in the cannabis industry as it pertains to each jurisdiction.

What blockchain infrastructure will be used for the payment solution when the platform launches and why was this chosen?

We chose the Ethereum platform as it provides stability and consistency. With the industry that we are operating in, we needed something lightweight, efficient, and widely accepted and traded. For these, as well as various other reasons, the Ethereum infrastructure made perfect sense.

Please provide more details with respect to the cash back program.

With every purchase, buyers will receive rewards in CANA tokens which can be accumulated for the following purposes;

  1. Hold onto the tokens in hopes of appreciation
  2. To use to purchase products and services in the ecosystem

The cash back will be a small percentage of the value of the purchase. Ex: If we determine that the cash back is 1%, the buyer will receive $0.10 back in CANA tokens on a $10 purchase.

Is the ecosystem open for other payment solutions other than CANA tokens (USD, BTC, ETH, etc.)? If so, what are the benefits for those that use CANA?

We will allow for payment in fiat, BTC, ETH, etc. For purchases made with CANA tokens, buyers will receive double the cash back, therefore incentivizing the use of CANA.

What is the strategy with regards to data management? Will all data be stored on-chain?

We are using blockchain user and transactional data to help fuel our CannAI to optimize business processes, eliminate the need for decision making, and reduce the likelihood for poor inventory management

Are there ways users can earn CANA tokens (rewards)? Please specify.

We may run additional marketing incentive programs periodically that drive adoption. These programs will be developed with many variables in mind (health of the crypto currency market, adoption for specific geo-graphic locations, the number of merchants in our ecosystem, etc)

What is the value proposition for CANA tokens?

Aside from the potential for appreciation, CANA will have a significantly smaller transaction fee in comparison to credit cards and other forms of payment.

Use this code to share the ratings on your website