Cartel Coin

Cartel Chain is a forward-looking iterative blockchain project, single-minded in its initiative to streamline e-commerce via an “ease of use” exchange,

About Cartel Coin

Cartel aims to develop a platform, CartelChain, which will allow for a direct-to-consumer business model by allowing consumers to purchase items directly from the manufacturers. CTRL tokens are used as a medium of exchange.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.2
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; little or no technical discussion.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Overall, the whitepaper lacks detail and is fairly short. The document focuses on discussing the current market landscape as opposed to providing details of the platform that would make the platform stand out from its competition.

Readability: The whitepaper lacks detail but does not obfuscate the document with an overuse of buzzwords and technical terms. As a result, the document is easily readable.

Transparency: The GitHub page is not available. Potential issues and limitations of the platform are not discussed with great detail. Discussion of competitors is absent. However, the organization is fairly transparent with the current (early) stage of development of the platform. It is stated that the team is still determining which “proof” shall be used for the platform and that solutions for various aspects of the platform are currently being investigated (consensus protocol, identity verification and transaction management system, oracles, and delivery verification).

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Beyond market research, business related details of the platform are presented with low levels of detail. Important considerations such as fee structure and financial projections (expected expenditure and revenue) are absent. The document focuses on assessing the current market landscape as opposed to the business-related expectations of the platform. Cartel plans to “generate revenues in the near term and building a functional platform is the first order of business”. However, specific quantitative details regarding how much revenue will be generated in the “near term” is absent from the whitepaper. The functionality of the Cartel Coin (CRTL) is discussed briefly using a few bullet points. To summarize, CTRL tokens will be used as a medium exchange that enables token holders to avoid paying “100% of all transaction fees”.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical aspects of the platform are absent from the whitepaper. A basic schematic is included in the document which outlines the process of a buyer/seller agreement. The Cartel Platform plans to utilize an oracle solution to “confirm receipt of goods and the eventual release of funds to the sellers”. Specific oracle solutions are not discussed but are expected to be ready when the platform is launched. In the future, Cartel plans to develop their own full-scale blockchain solution. Technical details are not provided. Instead, the document lists the functionality of the proposed blockchain solution. Critical technical components of the platform are in the conceptualization phase: it is stated that “at the time of this writing, the development team is still determining which “proof” shall be delegated”.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper and Cartel website does not contain content regarding the legal considerations of the platform/token.

Documentation Market

Product

1.5
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.

Product

Differentiation: Based on information provided, Cartel does not effectively communicate how the platform differs from its competition. Instead, the focus is on how the platform plans to compete against existing (non-blockchain based) solutions. Potential competitors include Yodse, SyncFab, and and 3DChain.

Readiness: At its current stage of development, the Cartel Platform is still primarily an idea. Based on the roadmap presented in the whitepaper, the organization has completed an MVP (demonstration or details of the MVP are absent). Overall, there is a lack of publicly available content that would suggest that the organization has progressed passed the conceptualization stage of development.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented in the Cartel whitepaper lacks detail. There are three groups of milestones: Q1/Q2, Q3, and Q4. The milestones are as follows:

Q1/Q2
* Rebrand
* Token Integration and distribution
* CCI MVP Completion
* Private Alpha test CCI
* Sales team staffing
* Exchange listing

Q3
* OSX/Windows wallet release
* Partnership announcements
* Participating brand announcements
* Marketing deployment
* CCI Public Beta using platform to purchase
* Additional exchange listing

Q4
* iOS/Android mobile wallets
* Review platform testing
* Beta test commercial BBI
* Exchange listing
* Integrate P2P Lending solution
* Launch platform and all assets

The level of detail provided for each milestone is fairly low. Milestones are not funding dependent. Development of the CartelChain blockchain solution is not outlined in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: The roadmap is fairly limited with respect to future projections of the development of the platform (projections do not extend past 2018). The organization and the platform are  still at an early developmental stage. Any technically-focused achievements are not clearly shown on the website (or a GitHub page). Thus, Cartel is primarily at the conceptualization stage of development.

Feasibility: Critical aspects of the platform (oracle and delivery verification, for example) are not thoroughly discussed and are at an early stage of development. As such, Cartel’s goal to “facilitate the direct sales of goods from the manufacturer to individual consumers and businesses at wholesale prices” is fairly ambitious, due to the reliance on systems which have yet to be developed. It is stated that if oracle and delivery verification solutions are not available at launch, that the organization plans to use “smart contract pre-images or manually releasing the funds through the Cartel Platform”. However, this raises questions of scalability and feasibility. In addition to a payment solution and rewards program, Cartel plans to develop their own blockchain solution. Considering the lack of detail provided in the whitepaper and the lack of developers on the team that have had extensive blockchain-related experience, the development of CartelChain will be a considerable obstacle.

Blockchain Innovation: The innovation that Cartel presents heavily relies on the innovation that blockchain and cryptocurrency brings in general, as opposed to being innovative relative to similar blockchain-focused projects. It is not evident that the organization will facilitate blockchain developments that would provide value to other projects outside the platform.

Product Company and Team

Market

2.8
Market
Target User Base

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
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...

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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: Consumers, particularly those from the e-commerce sector are the target user base for the Cartel Platform. Additionally, manufacturers would also benefit if the platform is able to increase product distribution efficiency and reduce costs.

Market Penetration Potential: With respect to other blockchain-focused projects that aim to disrupt commerce and supply-chain, it is not evident that Cartel will be able to effectively compete. Of course, there are inefficiencies with current solutions. This is discussed in the whitepaper. In short, “much of the associated, if not padded expenses are the links between the price after manufacturing and its indirect path to retail”. Cartel plans to develop a system where consumers are able to purchase items directly from the manufacturer at much lower prices. Giving consumers the ability to purchase items at a lower cost will drive demand for the platform. However, factors other than price must be considered when competing with market leaders such as Amazon (brand loyalty, shipping times, customer service, user experience, etc).

Direct Competition: Based on information provided, Cartel does not effectively communicate how the platform differs from its competition. Instead, the focus is on how the platform plans to compete against existing (non-blockchain based) solutions. Potential competitors include Yodse, SyncFab, and 3DChain. Yodse is currently at the pre-ICO funding stage and aims to create a platform which aims to connect “manufacturers and customers of industrial goods”. SyncFab has completed their token sale and has “developed a online decentralized buyer-to-manufacturer platform [which] aggregates all orders and sends requests directly to manufacturers that match the buyer’s requirements on the Smart Manufacturing Blockchain”. 3DChain has a more narrow scope, focusing first on 3D printing technology, but “will expand to other manufacturing environments” and will have their pre-ICO funding event from June 1, 2018 to June 21, 2018.

Solution Advantage: The document outlines advantages of the platform compared to existing solutions. However, when compared to similar projects, it’s not evident what the platform will allow that sets it apart from the competition. The functionality of the token and the proposed blockchain solution are somewhat vague and is not accompanied with convincing technical discussion. The benefit reducing costs by directly connecting manufacturers and consumers is clear. However, this aspect of the platform is shared among many similar projects and there is seemingly a lack of distinguishing features of the platform that would give Cartel a competitive advantage.

Blockchain Disruption: The level of disruption brought forth by the Cartel Platform does not extend much beyond the innovation brought forth by blockchain and cryptocurrency in general. In other words, the potential for disruption in the sector that Cartel is targeting is considerable, but the likelihood that Cartel will be at the forefront of the disruption when compared to other projects is seemingly low. However, the ability for consumers to directly purchase items from manufacturers is undoubtedly disruptive. Retailers will have to provide some sort of additional value to the item in order for consumers to justify purchasing from retailers as opposed to manufactures.

Long-Term Vision: The project seems to capitalize on the exuberance surrounding blockchain technology and cryptocurrency as opposed to developing a project with long-term potential. The roadmap is fairly vague and not considerably forward-thinking.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.0
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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
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: The majority of the information on the organization is on the Cartel website, which is fairly limited. Founding date/location is not provided. Cartel is seemingly at the initial stages of formation. Whether the organization has received investment funding is unclear.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The CEO and many other individuals with lead team positions are concurrently involved with several other projects/organizations. As a result, the level of commitment to the project is uncertain. Based on the roadmap presented in the whitepaper, the organization is still looking to expand their team (sales team staffing is planned for Q1/Q2 2018).

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Almost all team members provide their LinkedIn profile through the company website. The Asia Pacific Relations Manager’s LinkedIn profile could not be found via manual search. The level of detail with regards to the roles and responsibilities of each team member varies considerably. There are a number of individuals to do not disclose their affiliation with Cartel Chain on their LinkedIn Profile

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The background of the CEO is seemingly unrelated to the scope of the project. The individual was former military officer and founded a video gaming firm. There is not clear correlation with supply chain management and blockchain technology. With regards to the development team, prior experience is also limited with regards to its alignment with the goals of the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a large proportion of individuals with experience in marketing and a few that have had managerial experience with supply chain. There is a lack of developers with experience working on blockchain-related projects. The legal officer was formally a legal advisor at Minter Ellison. Overall, the skill set aligns most closely to business as opposed to technology development. Since Cartel plans to develop their own open source blockchain solution, CartelChain, the number of individuals with a technical background (specifically those with blockchain expertise) is seemingly low.

Strategic Partnerships: There are no notable strategic partnerships discussed in the whitepaper or the Cartel website.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.2
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: CTRL token holders will be able to utilize the platform without paying transaction fees. As a result, the token is not essential to the platform and does not provide significant utility value. It is stated that token holders will be rewarded with fee-payouts.

Token Economy: Information on token economy is not sufficiently discussed. Instead, the whitepaper focuses on discussing the current market landscape and how the platform will be able to provide features that would benefit both manufacturers and consumers. Aspects of the platform related to the business plan and the token economy are lacking in the whitepaper.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that if oracle and delivery verification solutions are not available when the platform is launched, Cartel will use “smart contract pre-images or manually releasing the funds through the Cartel Platform”. The governance structure of the platform is not sufficiently discussed, thus it appears that decentralization is not a core value of the platform. Only vague assertions are presented in the platform regarding governance as it stated that “CRTL will endeavor to establish a transparent governance system that best serves the greater good of active participants within the ecosystem”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Token details can be found on the Cartel website.

Soft cap: $500K
Hard cap: $7.9MM

The document does not provide sufficient information to justify the funding goals of the ICO.<p><span data-sheets-value=”{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;High level of readability as there are multiple documents which explain the project objectives in many forms and levels of comprehensiveness.&quot;}”

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds as shown in the whitepaper is as follows:

25% Research and Development
15% Technical Development
25% Sales and Marketing
15% Operations
12.5% Administration
2.5% Legal
5% Capital Reserves

Use of proceeds does not depend on level of funding received from the ICO. Further information regarding how the use of proceeds is allocated is not presented in the whitepaper.

Token Allocation: Token allocation according to the whitepaper is presented as follows:

* 70% Token generation event
* 10% Private Investors
* 15% Team
* 5% Advisory services

Tokens allocated to the team are locked until the build is complete. Vesting periods for tokens allocated to advisors is not outlined. The token allocation heavily favors the community.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Overall, the whitepaper lacks detail and is fairly short. The document focuses on discussing the current market landscape as opposed to providing details of the platform that would make the platform stand out from its competition.

Readability: The whitepaper lacks detail but does not obfuscate the document with an overuse of buzzwords and technical terms. As a result, the document is easily readable.

Transparency: The GitHub page is not available. Potential issues and limitations of the platform are not discussed with great detail. Discussion of competitors is absent. However, the organization is fairly transparent with the current (early) stage of development of the platform. It is stated that the team is still determining which “proof” shall be used for the platform and that solutions for various aspects of the platform are currently being investigated (consensus protocol, identity verification and transaction management system, oracles, and delivery verification).

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Beyond market research, business related details of the platform are presented with low levels of detail. Important considerations such as fee structure and financial projections (expected expenditure and revenue) are absent. The document focuses on assessing the current market landscape as opposed to the business-related expectations of the platform. Cartel plans to “generate revenues in the near term and building a functional platform is the first order of business”. However, specific quantitative details regarding how much revenue will be generated in the “near term” is absent from the whitepaper. The functionality of the Cartel Coin (CRTL) is discussed briefly using a few bullet points. To summarize, CTRL tokens will be used as a medium exchange that enables token holders to avoid paying “100% of all transaction fees”.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical aspects of the platform are absent from the whitepaper. A basic schematic is included in the document which outlines the process of a buyer/seller agreement. The Cartel Platform plans to utilize an oracle solution to “confirm receipt of goods and the eventual release of funds to the sellers”. Specific oracle solutions are not discussed but are expected to be ready when the platform is launched. In the future, Cartel plans to develop their own full-scale blockchain solution. Technical details are not provided. Instead, the document lists the functionality of the proposed blockchain solution. Critical technical components of the platform are in the conceptualization phase: it is stated that “at the time of this writing, the development team is still determining which “proof” shall be delegated”.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper and Cartel website does not contain content regarding the legal considerations of the platform/token.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; little or no technical discussion.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Documentation Score:
2.2

Product

Differentiation: Based on information provided, Cartel does not effectively communicate how the platform differs from its competition. Instead, the focus is on how the platform plans to compete against existing (non-blockchain based) solutions. Potential competitors include Yodse, SyncFab, and and 3DChain.

Readiness: At its current stage of development, the Cartel Platform is still primarily an idea. Based on the roadmap presented in the whitepaper, the organization has completed an MVP (demonstration or details of the MVP are absent). Overall, there is a lack of publicly available content that would suggest that the organization has progressed passed the conceptualization stage of development.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented in the Cartel whitepaper lacks detail. There are three groups of milestones: Q1/Q2, Q3, and Q4. The milestones are as follows:

Q1/Q2
* Rebrand
* Token Integration and distribution
* CCI MVP Completion
* Private Alpha test CCI
* Sales team staffing
* Exchange listing

Q3
* OSX/Windows wallet release
* Partnership announcements
* Participating brand announcements
* Marketing deployment
* CCI Public Beta using platform to purchase
* Additional exchange listing

Q4
* iOS/Android mobile wallets
* Review platform testing
* Beta test commercial BBI
* Exchange listing
* Integrate P2P Lending solution
* Launch platform and all assets

The level of detail provided for each milestone is fairly low. Milestones are not funding dependent. Development of the CartelChain blockchain solution is not outlined in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: The roadmap is fairly limited with respect to future projections of the development of the platform (projections do not extend past 2018). The organization and the platform are  still at an early developmental stage. Any technically-focused achievements are not clearly shown on the website (or a GitHub page). Thus, Cartel is primarily at the conceptualization stage of development.

Feasibility: Critical aspects of the platform (oracle and delivery verification, for example) are not thoroughly discussed and are at an early stage of development. As such, Cartel’s goal to “facilitate the direct sales of goods from the manufacturer to individual consumers and businesses at wholesale prices” is fairly ambitious, due to the reliance on systems which have yet to be developed. It is stated that if oracle and delivery verification solutions are not available at launch, that the organization plans to use “smart contract pre-images or manually releasing the funds through the Cartel Platform”. However, this raises questions of scalability and feasibility. In addition to a payment solution and rewards program, Cartel plans to develop their own blockchain solution. Considering the lack of detail provided in the whitepaper and the lack of developers on the team that have had extensive blockchain-related experience, the development of CartelChain will be a considerable obstacle.

Blockchain Innovation: The innovation that Cartel presents heavily relies on the innovation that blockchain and cryptocurrency brings in general, as opposed to being innovative relative to similar blockchain-focused projects. It is not evident that the organization will facilitate blockchain developments that would provide value to other projects outside the platform.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
1.5

Market

Target User Base: Consumers, particularly those from the e-commerce sector are the target user base for the Cartel Platform. Additionally, manufacturers would also benefit if the platform is able to increase product distribution efficiency and reduce costs.

Market Penetration Potential: With respect to other blockchain-focused projects that aim to disrupt commerce and supply-chain, it is not evident that Cartel will be able to effectively compete. Of course, there are inefficiencies with current solutions. This is discussed in the whitepaper. In short, “much of the associated, if not padded expenses are the links between the price after manufacturing and its indirect path to retail”. Cartel plans to develop a system where consumers are able to purchase items directly from the manufacturer at much lower prices. Giving consumers the ability to purchase items at a lower cost will drive demand for the platform. However, factors other than price must be considered when competing with market leaders such as Amazon (brand loyalty, shipping times, customer service, user experience, etc).

Direct Competition: Based on information provided, Cartel does not effectively communicate how the platform differs from its competition. Instead, the focus is on how the platform plans to compete against existing (non-blockchain based) solutions. Potential competitors include Yodse, SyncFab, and 3DChain. Yodse is currently at the pre-ICO funding stage and aims to create a platform which aims to connect “manufacturers and customers of industrial goods”. SyncFab has completed their token sale and has “developed a online decentralized buyer-to-manufacturer platform [which] aggregates all orders and sends requests directly to manufacturers that match the buyer’s requirements on the Smart Manufacturing Blockchain”. 3DChain has a more narrow scope, focusing first on 3D printing technology, but “will expand to other manufacturing environments” and will have their pre-ICO funding event from June 1, 2018 to June 21, 2018.

Solution Advantage: The document outlines advantages of the platform compared to existing solutions. However, when compared to similar projects, it’s not evident what the platform will allow that sets it apart from the competition. The functionality of the token and the proposed blockchain solution are somewhat vague and is not accompanied with convincing technical discussion. The benefit reducing costs by directly connecting manufacturers and consumers is clear. However, this aspect of the platform is shared among many similar projects and there is seemingly a lack of distinguishing features of the platform that would give Cartel a competitive advantage.

Blockchain Disruption: The level of disruption brought forth by the Cartel Platform does not extend much beyond the innovation brought forth by blockchain and cryptocurrency in general. In other words, the potential for disruption in the sector that Cartel is targeting is considerable, but the likelihood that Cartel will be at the forefront of the disruption when compared to other projects is seemingly low. However, the ability for consumers to directly purchase items from manufacturers is undoubtedly disruptive. Retailers will have to provide some sort of additional value to the item in order for consumers to justify purchasing from retailers as opposed to manufactures.

Long-Term Vision: The project seems to capitalize on the exuberance surrounding blockchain technology and cryptocurrency as opposed to developing a project with long-term potential. The roadmap is fairly vague and not considerably forward-thinking.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
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...

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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:
2.8

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The majority of the information on the organization is on the Cartel website, which is fairly limited. Founding date/location is not provided. Cartel is seemingly at the initial stages of formation. Whether the organization has received investment funding is unclear.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The CEO and many other individuals with lead team positions are concurrently involved with several other projects/organizations. As a result, the level of commitment to the project is uncertain. Based on the roadmap presented in the whitepaper, the organization is still looking to expand their team (sales team staffing is planned for Q1/Q2 2018).

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Almost all team members provide their LinkedIn profile through the company website. The Asia Pacific Relations Manager’s LinkedIn profile could not be found via manual search. The level of detail with regards to the roles and responsibilities of each team member varies considerably. There are a number of individuals to do not disclose their affiliation with Cartel Chain on their LinkedIn Profile

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The background of the CEO is seemingly unrelated to the scope of the project. The individual was former military officer and founded a video gaming firm. There is not clear correlation with supply chain management and blockchain technology. With regards to the development team, prior experience is also limited with regards to its alignment with the goals of the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a large proportion of individuals with experience in marketing and a few that have had managerial experience with supply chain. There is a lack of developers with experience working on blockchain-related projects. The legal officer was formally a legal advisor at Minter Ellison. Overall, the skill set aligns most closely to business as opposed to technology development. Since Cartel plans to develop their own open source blockchain solution, CartelChain, the number of individuals with a technical background (specifically those with blockchain expertise) is seemingly low.

Strategic Partnerships: There are no notable strategic partnerships discussed in the whitepaper or the Cartel website.

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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
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:
2.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: CTRL token holders will be able to utilize the platform without paying transaction fees. As a result, the token is not essential to the platform and does not provide significant utility value. It is stated that token holders will be rewarded with fee-payouts.

Token Economy: Information on token economy is not sufficiently discussed. Instead, the whitepaper focuses on discussing the current market landscape and how the platform will be able to provide features that would benefit both manufacturers and consumers. Aspects of the platform related to the business plan and the token economy are lacking in the whitepaper.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that if oracle and delivery verification solutions are not available when the platform is launched, Cartel will use “smart contract pre-images or manually releasing the funds through the Cartel Platform”. The governance structure of the platform is not sufficiently discussed, thus it appears that decentralization is not a core value of the platform. Only vague assertions are presented in the platform regarding governance as it stated that “CRTL will endeavor to establish a transparent governance system that best serves the greater good of active participants within the ecosystem”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Token details can be found on the Cartel website.

Soft cap: $500K
Hard cap: $7.9MM

The document does not provide sufficient information to justify the funding goals of the ICO.<p><span data-sheets-value=”{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;High level of readability as there are multiple documents which explain the project objectives in many forms and levels of comprehensiveness.&quot;}”

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds as shown in the whitepaper is as follows:

25% Research and Development
15% Technical Development
25% Sales and Marketing
15% Operations
12.5% Administration
2.5% Legal
5% Capital Reserves

Use of proceeds does not depend on level of funding received from the ICO. Further information regarding how the use of proceeds is allocated is not presented in the whitepaper.

Token Allocation: Token allocation according to the whitepaper is presented as follows:

* 70% Token generation event
* 10% Private Investors
* 15% Team
* 5% Advisory services

Tokens allocated to the team are locked until the build is complete. Vesting periods for tokens allocated to advisors is not outlined. The token allocation heavily favors the community.

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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Token Economics Score:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website