HUSSY

Utilizing Blockchain technology to create a decentralized infrastructure with additional off-chain due diligence and listings authorities for safer execution of sex work.

About HUSSY

HUSSY is a platform that aims to create a safer means in which sex workers and their clients are able to engage in paid services via KYC procedures, professional health certification and proof-of-compliance. HUS tokens are used by service providers to pay advertising fees to the listing platform (it will not be used as a means of exchange between clients and sex workers).

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.7
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is discussed adequately with relevant statistics (which are adequately cited). The solution is discussed fairly well with a thorough discussion of the different roles within the ecosystem. Technical content is presented thoroughly and business-related aspects of the platform are available. Team information can be found on the website and the whitepaper. There is a Howey Test included towards the end of the whitepaper. Legal content and information regarding the business-related aspects of the platform are lacking detail.

Readability: The information presented in the whitepaper is well articulated. However, some unnecessary details are included, which may potentially obfuscate the document. For example, the token valuation is based on the discounted present value of the token. The calculations involved with determining the discounted cash flow could be relocated to the appendix of the whitepaper to improve the readability. Another example would be the inclusion of the discussion regarding design language for the web application (Material Design).

Transparency: There is not enough information presented that clearly discusses the current state of technical development or potential competitors.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business development plan is somewhat lacking. There are three sections of the business plan: a brief assessment (5 sentences) on the size of the market which includes references to relevant studies, a brief discussion regarding the different adopters according to the Rogger’s bell curve (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards), and a discussion regarding the marketing strategy (paid advertisement, event participation, PR, and media outreach). It is stated that “more detailed information, analysis of the target market, budgeting, competitors analysis, customers analysis and other parts of the marketing strategy for this stage are available on request”. There is a comprehensive evaluation on the projected token valuation using the discounted present value of the utility token using various assumptions, which is included towards the end of the whitepaper. A separate document outlines the assumptions used for the projections. Although there is additional content provided with respect to the projected value of the token, business development plans are insufficiently discussed.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Various aspects of how the platform will function are discussed, including use-case analysis for different actors on the platform. Payments are completed via µRaiden. Content indexing and the listing certificates will be stored via IPFS. Further discussion regarding IPFS is limited to a generic description of how the technology works as opposed to how the organization plans to implement the technology.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: At the end of the whitepaper, a Howey Test is included (which resulted in an Overall Risk Score of 60). Additional legal content is minimal in both the whitepaper and the company website.

Documentation Market

Product

2.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some; has a certain edge or angle.
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)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).

Product

Differentiation: The platform does not aim to develop tokens which will be used as a means of exchange on the platform. Instead, HUS tokens are used to pay advertising fees for service providers, which avoids major regulatory obstacles that are associated with mediating payments between sex workers and their clients. The platform aims to ensure that workers of of legal age and are legal citizens via KYC, as well as ensuring health with health certificates that are published to the blockchain.

Readiness: Based on publicly available information on the company GitHub page, the platform seems to be still primarily an idea. The GitHub page contains low levels of detail and contains empty repositories.

Concreteness of Development Plans: Overall plans are presented and it is stated that the organization intends to release an MVP in Q3 2018. Most milestones pertain to the business development of the platform as opposed to milestones that have a technical focus.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, according to the roadmap presented in the whitepaper, the organization has successfully developed a website and whitepaper and is currently working on the platform (further details are not disclosed) and operating the bounty program. There are a significant amount of technical and business development to be made.

Feasiblity: According to the point presented in the whitepaper, the development of the MVP began in Q2 2018 and the organization aims to release the Testnet version of the platform in Q4 2018, followed by the Mainnet release in Q3 2019. The goals set out by the organization seem fairly reasonable.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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...

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Few direct competitors (e.g., less than 5), or a leading solution. Blockchain solutions only starting to surface 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 are sex workers and their clients. As such, the platform targets a niche demographic. In the whitepaper, it is stated that there are 40-42 million sex workers all around the world.

Market Penetration Potential: Due to the lack regulations regarding escort services, the potential for providing a service that would greatly benefit both the service providers and their clients (in terms of health, security, finances) is considerable.

Direct Competition: Competitors are not explicitly discussed in the whitepaper. Although the platform is targeting a somewhat niche demographic, the organization faces some competitors including (but not limited to): – Spankchain – PinkDate – SexService

Solution Advantage: The platform will require KYC and health certification which is published to the blockchain. Furthermore the organization is investigating the possibility of developing a proof-of-consent system The platform does not use their tokens as a means of exchange, thus facing less regulatory obstacles.

Blockchain Disruption: There is considerable potential for disruption in the sex work sector considering the lack of development in the space due to the regulatory limitations of working in the industry without governmental oversight.

Long-Term Vision: The platform aims to provide a service that would benefit service providers and clients, regardless of jurisdiction. After launching in selected countries (not explicitly discussed), the organization intends to expand to other countries/continents.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

1.7
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..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
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: It is unknown whether the organization has received significant levels of investment funding. Based on company’s LinkedIn profile, the organization is stationed in Vienna.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 6 individuals are presented in the whitepaper and the company website, along with 4 advisors. Approximately half of the core team is concurrently involved with other projects (based on their LinkedIn profiles). As a result, team commitment is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each core team member and the advisors include links to their LinkedIn profiles and a short bio description. Many of the core team members do not disclose their relationship with the project. Information with regards to previous work experiences is indicated.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The work experience of the core team members seem to have little to no relevance to the nature of the project. The team member with the most relevant experience is the marketing specialist, with experience marketing other blockchain-focused projects.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There seems to be a lack of individuals on the team with a technical position. At the time of review, there are only 2 technical roles; a software engineer and a full-stack engineer. Furthermore, there is a lack of individuals with experience with developing for large-scale blockchain-focused projects.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships and/or launch partners are not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.3
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The projected value of the token is based on some sample calculations that uses the “Current Utility Value” and the “Discounted Expected Utility Value”. HUS tokens are used by service providers in order to place advertisements on the platform. Discussion regarding the advertising component of the platform is described with low levels of detail. It should be noted that HUS tokens are not intended to act as a means of exchange between sex workers and clients for regulatory purposes.

Token Economy: Total supply: 100 million HUS Specific details regarding the earn/spend mechanisms, fee structure, etc. are not adequately discussed. However, the different roles within the ecosystem is discussed fairly well in a qualitative manner.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will utilize KYC, which will be “manually examined by a qualified due diligence personnel”. The details regarding the electoral/hiring process are not clearly presented. As a result, the organization does not seem to treat decentralization as a core value for the platform. Furthermore, the platform will utilize off-chain components (details of which aspects of the platform will be off-chain and how the off-chain solution will operate is discussed with low levels of detail).

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $2MM USD Hard cap: $20MM USD The fundraising goals are unrelated to plans and are not accompanied with a discussion that would justify the magnitude of the hard cap.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 30% – Development 20% – Marketing 20% – Acquisitions and merges 20% – Reserve 5% – Legal 5% – Administrative Some further details are presented regarding the marketing strategy, but a further breakdown of how proceeds will be used is not included.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 50% – Public token sale 10% – Private token sale 21% – Treasury (reserve) 13% – Team members and advisory board 3% – Early adopters 3% – Bounty program Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is uncertain if unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is discussed adequately with relevant statistics (which are adequately cited). The solution is discussed fairly well with a thorough discussion of the different roles within the ecosystem. Technical content is presented thoroughly and business-related aspects of the platform are available. Team information can be found on the website and the whitepaper. There is a Howey Test included towards the end of the whitepaper. Legal content and information regarding the business-related aspects of the platform are lacking detail.

Readability: The information presented in the whitepaper is well articulated. However, some unnecessary details are included, which may potentially obfuscate the document. For example, the token valuation is based on the discounted present value of the token. The calculations involved with determining the discounted cash flow could be relocated to the appendix of the whitepaper to improve the readability. Another example would be the inclusion of the discussion regarding design language for the web application (Material Design).

Transparency: There is not enough information presented that clearly discusses the current state of technical development or potential competitors.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business development plan is somewhat lacking. There are three sections of the business plan: a brief assessment (5 sentences) on the size of the market which includes references to relevant studies, a brief discussion regarding the different adopters according to the Rogger’s bell curve (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards), and a discussion regarding the marketing strategy (paid advertisement, event participation, PR, and media outreach). It is stated that “more detailed information, analysis of the target market, budgeting, competitors analysis, customers analysis and other parts of the marketing strategy for this stage are available on request”. There is a comprehensive evaluation on the projected token valuation using the discounted present value of the utility token using various assumptions, which is included towards the end of the whitepaper. A separate document outlines the assumptions used for the projections. Although there is additional content provided with respect to the projected value of the token, business development plans are insufficiently discussed.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Various aspects of how the platform will function are discussed, including use-case analysis for different actors on the platform. Payments are completed via µRaiden. Content indexing and the listing certificates will be stored via IPFS. Further discussion regarding IPFS is limited to a generic description of how the technology works as opposed to how the organization plans to implement the technology.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: At the end of the whitepaper, a Howey Test is included (which resulted in an Overall Risk Score of 60). Additional legal content is minimal in both the whitepaper and the company website.

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.7

Product

Differentiation: The platform does not aim to develop tokens which will be used as a means of exchange on the platform. Instead, HUS tokens are used to pay advertising fees for service providers, which avoids major regulatory obstacles that are associated with mediating payments between sex workers and their clients. The platform aims to ensure that workers of of legal age and are legal citizens via KYC, as well as ensuring health with health certificates that are published to the blockchain.

Readiness: Based on publicly available information on the company GitHub page, the platform seems to be still primarily an idea. The GitHub page contains low levels of detail and contains empty repositories.

Concreteness of Development Plans: Overall plans are presented and it is stated that the organization intends to release an MVP in Q3 2018. Most milestones pertain to the business development of the platform as opposed to milestones that have a technical focus.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, according to the roadmap presented in the whitepaper, the organization has successfully developed a website and whitepaper and is currently working on the platform (further details are not disclosed) and operating the bounty program. There are a significant amount of technical and business development to be made.

Feasiblity: According to the point presented in the whitepaper, the development of the MVP began in Q2 2018 and the organization aims to release the Testnet version of the platform in Q4 2018, followed by the Mainnet release in Q3 2019. The goals set out by the organization seem fairly reasonable.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some; has a certain edge or angle.
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)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
2.0

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are sex workers and their clients. As such, the platform targets a niche demographic. In the whitepaper, it is stated that there are 40-42 million sex workers all around the world.

Market Penetration Potential: Due to the lack regulations regarding escort services, the potential for providing a service that would greatly benefit both the service providers and their clients (in terms of health, security, finances) is considerable.

Direct Competition: Competitors are not explicitly discussed in the whitepaper. Although the platform is targeting a somewhat niche demographic, the organization faces some competitors including (but not limited to): – Spankchain – PinkDate – SexService

Solution Advantage: The platform will require KYC and health certification which is published to the blockchain. Furthermore the organization is investigating the possibility of developing a proof-of-consent system The platform does not use their tokens as a means of exchange, thus facing less regulatory obstacles.

Blockchain Disruption: There is considerable potential for disruption in the sex work sector considering the lack of development in the space due to the regulatory limitations of working in the industry without governmental oversight.

Long-Term Vision: The platform aims to provide a service that would benefit service providers and clients, regardless of jurisdiction. After launching in selected countries (not explicitly discussed), the organization intends to expand to other countries/continents.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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...

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Few direct competitors (e.g., less than 5), or a leading solution. Blockchain solutions only starting to surface 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: It is unknown whether the organization has received significant levels of investment funding. Based on company’s LinkedIn profile, the organization is stationed in Vienna.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 6 individuals are presented in the whitepaper and the company website, along with 4 advisors. Approximately half of the core team is concurrently involved with other projects (based on their LinkedIn profiles). As a result, team commitment is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each core team member and the advisors include links to their LinkedIn profiles and a short bio description. Many of the core team members do not disclose their relationship with the project. Information with regards to previous work experiences is indicated.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The work experience of the core team members seem to have little to no relevance to the nature of the project. The team member with the most relevant experience is the marketing specialist, with experience marketing other blockchain-focused projects.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There seems to be a lack of individuals on the team with a technical position. At the time of review, there are only 2 technical roles; a software engineer and a full-stack engineer. Furthermore, there is a lack of individuals with experience with developing for large-scale blockchain-focused projects.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships and/or launch partners 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).

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..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
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:
1.7

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The projected value of the token is based on some sample calculations that uses the “Current Utility Value” and the “Discounted Expected Utility Value”. HUS tokens are used by service providers in order to place advertisements on the platform. Discussion regarding the advertising component of the platform is described with low levels of detail. It should be noted that HUS tokens are not intended to act as a means of exchange between sex workers and clients for regulatory purposes.

Token Economy: Total supply: 100 million HUS Specific details regarding the earn/spend mechanisms, fee structure, etc. are not adequately discussed. However, the different roles within the ecosystem is discussed fairly well in a qualitative manner.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will utilize KYC, which will be “manually examined by a qualified due diligence personnel”. The details regarding the electoral/hiring process are not clearly presented. As a result, the organization does not seem to treat decentralization as a core value for the platform. Furthermore, the platform will utilize off-chain components (details of which aspects of the platform will be off-chain and how the off-chain solution will operate is discussed with low levels of detail).

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $2MM USD Hard cap: $20MM USD The fundraising goals are unrelated to plans and are not accompanied with a discussion that would justify the magnitude of the hard cap.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 30% – Development 20% – Marketing 20% – Acquisitions and merges 20% – Reserve 5% – Legal 5% – Administrative Some further details are presented regarding the marketing strategy, but a further breakdown of how proceeds will be used is not included.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 50% – Public token sale 10% – Private token sale 21% – Treasury (reserve) 13% – Team members and advisory board 3% – Early adopters 3% – Bounty program Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is uncertain if unsold tokens will be burned.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
2.3

Use this code to share the ratings on your website