iCashWeb

A coin for free Health Assistance

About iCashWeb

Neapolis is an organization that plans to sell iCashweb tokens, which will be used to with Pharmamedic. Pharmamedic is a platform that facilitates consulting, sharing information, and for specialists to stay in touch. The overall goal of the Neapolis ecosystem is to create a global decentralized network focused on financial services for the health care sector via iCashweb. iCashweb tokens (ICW) are used as a means of exchange.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

1.2
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
Readability

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Incomprehensible, incoherent. Pervasive errors, incorrect use of terms, extreme disorganization, etc.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Appearing to misinform or deliberately obfuscate critical information. Hiding the real nature or state of the project.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; business and token models are too vague to assess.
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)?

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Overall there is a lack of detail that is presented. Most aspects of the platform lack clarity. The problem statement is unclear and the technical discussion of the platform lacks detail. The business development plan and the token model is nearly nonexistent and incoherent. The team is presented only through the company website. The GitHub is shown and contains two repositories, one for the whitepaper and the other for the token smart contracts. Legal content is lacking.

Readability: The document is obfuscated. The direction of the organization is unclear and the purpose of the platform itself is uncertain. The problem statement and the solution are described adequately. The whitepaper is not organized well and it is difficult to determine the purpose of the platform. The document is filled with statements with grammatical errors.

Transparency: The whitepaper is written in a manner which obfuscates the document to a high degree. The whitepaper is filled with vague comments and the overall direction of the organization is unclear. For instance, it is stated that “the application and execution of the iCashweb procedures run on the Ethereum blockchain protocol, providing an important guarantee for virtual money companies”. The current stage of development is not clear.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business development plan and the token model are not clear. Specific details are not presented. Instead, the document is filled with confusing statements that make it difficult to assess the business model of the organization.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The majority of the technical aspects of whitepaper are primarily a vague/generic discussion of how blockchain technology or smart contracts work. The technical components of the whitepaper lack sophistication. There is a considerable amount of generic content allocated to discussing the advantages of smart contracts.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal content is minimal. There is a brief section in the beginning of the whitepaper that outlines some disclosures regarding the platform and the organization, but it is not written professionally.

 

Documentation Market

Product

1.3
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?

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)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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 effectively distinguish itself due to the lack of clarity of the whitepaper.

Readiness: The platform seems to be primarily an idea. The company GitHub page shows minimal activity and a proof-of-concept or MVP is not available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website is presented as follows:

Feb to Mar 2018
– Pre-pre-sale
Mar to Apr 2018
– Pre-sale
– Integration wallet
– ICW/Pharmamedic (Alpha)
May to Aug 2018
– ICO
– Launch wallet/market
– Final integration of wallet and ICW/Pharmamedic
Sept to Dec 2018
– Launch page medical project

Milestones lack detail and are unclear. For example, the meaning of the last milestone that spans from September to December 2018 is unclear.

Current Position within Roadmap: Notable achievements obtained by the organization are not evident. The current stage of development is not clear.

Feasiblity: The goals of the platform are not clear. The milestones set out in the roadmap are not adequately described. Considering that there is no indication of technical development with regards to the wallet and alpha version of the product at the time of review (June 2018), the potential for the organization to achieve future milestones within the specified time frame seems low.

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

 

Product Company and Team

Market

1.3
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...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly 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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.

Market

Target User Base: It is stated in the whitepaper that the Neapolis ecosystem will serve three types of participants: investors, entrepreneurs, and the Pharmamedic system itself. The meaning of the “Pharmamedic system” in relation to the target user base is not clear. The demographic of the platform is difficult to determine. It seems as though the platform caters towards those that would like to benefit/invest in financial services that pertain to the health care industry.

Market Penetration Potential: When considering the low quality of the whitepaper, the potential for the platform to have success in its target market seems unfavorable.

Direct Competition: Direct competitors are difficult to assess. The purpose and goals of the platform are not clear.

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are not evident/indeterminate.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, the potential for disruption with the implementation of blockchain technology is indeterminate. This is due to the fact that the whitepaper is obfuscated to such a degree that the implementation of blockchain technology and how it will benefit the platform is not clear.

Long-Term Vision: It seems as though the organization is capitalizing on the hype surrounding cryptocurrency and blockchain technology in order to raise funds. The purpose of the platform is not clear and it is inferred from the whitepaper that the organization does not seem to have a thorough understanding of how blockchain technology will be used.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

1.2
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
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..."]).

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (many absent online profiles or hardly any information).
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely 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: Neapolis Holding Ltd is the organization that is responsible for developing iCashweb. The company is established in London, United Kingdom. It is unclear if the organization has received signifcant investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 12 individuals and 1 advisor is presented on the company website. The team structure is outlined as follows:

Egidio Simonelli | President

Adele Quattrociocchi | Vice President

Anila Pepa | Chief Information Officer

Stefano De Rubis | Architect Services Manager

Mahendra Varma | Project Manager

Ingrid Bastidas | Community Manager

Carlos Ponticelli | Chief Strategic Operations

Meilyn Plaza | Copywriter Editor

Juan Gutierrez | Art Director

Nishad Vadgama | Developer

Mayursinh Vaghela | Designer

Benjamín Calderón | Head Of UX / UI

Only one team member (the President) shows affiliation with Pharmamedic and Neapolis. The rest of the team members do not show their involvement with the project. As such, the team seems uncommitted to the project.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Many of the links provided for the LinkedIn profiles of team members do not work. Additionally, some links simply direct to the company website instead of the LinkedIn profiles. Bio descriptions are not included for team members and the level of information presented on LinkedIn profiles for most team members is quite low.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Relevance of team member’s previous work experience is uncertain due to the lack of information presented. The president of the organization has previous experience working in executive positions for organizations that do not seem to have clear relevance to the project. There seems to be a lack of individuals with expertise in the health care industry.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a significant lack of individuals with a technical position. There is only one developer on the team and there does not seem to be any team members with prior experience with blockchain development.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships are not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

1.3
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Token issued for fundraising purposes only. Unclear how or when token will have any kind of real value.
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).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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: There is a specific section in the whitepaper that addresses the value proposition of iCashweb tokens. iCashweb will be used as a new type of investment vehicle, where users will be able to propose investment activities to the Health-Care investment fund. The value proposition of the token is indeterminate due to the confusing description of how ICW tokens will be used. For example it is stated that “iCashweb tokens in addition to guarantee the services of the platform Pharmamedic allows the continuous re-evaluation of its investment and that basically transforms the health expenditure in inversion”. As such, the inherent value of the tokens are uncertain.

Token Economy: Total supply: 300 million iCW

Further details of the token economy are not clearly described. Earn/spend mechanisms are vague and the roles of each participant in context with the token economy is unclear.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform claims to use the concept of “Collective Intelligence”, which supposedly decentralizes governance. However, the governance structure is not outlined. It seems as though token holders will have some sort of voting privileges, but the voting mechanism is not explicitly outlined. The organization claims that “by making sure that every user can democratically assess the risk, make a decision on the initial investment determined by both the Pharmamedic platform and the opinion of other participants on the market”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 2,140,000 ICW (21,400 ETH)
Hard cap: 16,134,300 ICW (161,343 ETH)

ICW = 0.01 ETH

The raise amounts have no relation to development plans and seem nonsensical.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): Fund allocation is not clearly presented.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
50% – ICO
25% – System Pharmamedic (pre-ICO)
10% – Reserve
10% – Founding team
5% – Advisors

It is stated that tokens that are allocated to the team and advisors are locked for 6 months. The use of the reserve fund is not adequately discussed.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Overall there is a lack of detail that is presented. Most aspects of the platform lack clarity. The problem statement is unclear and the technical discussion of the platform lacks detail. The business development plan and the token model is nearly nonexistent and incoherent. The team is presented only through the company website. The GitHub is shown and contains two repositories, one for the whitepaper and the other for the token smart contracts. Legal content is lacking.

Readability: The document is obfuscated. The direction of the organization is unclear and the purpose of the platform itself is uncertain. The problem statement and the solution are described adequately. The whitepaper is not organized well and it is difficult to determine the purpose of the platform. The document is filled with statements with grammatical errors.

Transparency: The whitepaper is written in a manner which obfuscates the document to a high degree. The whitepaper is filled with vague comments and the overall direction of the organization is unclear. For instance, it is stated that “the application and execution of the iCashweb procedures run on the Ethereum blockchain protocol, providing an important guarantee for virtual money companies”. The current stage of development is not clear.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business development plan and the token model are not clear. Specific details are not presented. Instead, the document is filled with confusing statements that make it difficult to assess the business model of the organization.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The majority of the technical aspects of whitepaper are primarily a vague/generic discussion of how blockchain technology or smart contracts work. The technical components of the whitepaper lack sophistication. There is a considerable amount of generic content allocated to discussing the advantages of smart contracts.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal content is minimal. There is a brief section in the beginning of the whitepaper that outlines some disclosures regarding the platform and the organization, but it is not written professionally.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
Readability

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Incomprehensible, incoherent. Pervasive errors, incorrect use of terms, extreme disorganization, etc.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Appearing to misinform or deliberately obfuscate critical information. Hiding the real nature or state of the project.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; business and token models are too vague to assess.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
1.2

Product

Differentiation: The platform does not effectively distinguish itself due to the lack of clarity of the whitepaper.

Readiness: The platform seems to be primarily an idea. The company GitHub page shows minimal activity and a proof-of-concept or MVP is not available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website is presented as follows:

Feb to Mar 2018
– Pre-pre-sale
Mar to Apr 2018
– Pre-sale
– Integration wallet
– ICW/Pharmamedic (Alpha)
May to Aug 2018
– ICO
– Launch wallet/market
– Final integration of wallet and ICW/Pharmamedic
Sept to Dec 2018
– Launch page medical project

Milestones lack detail and are unclear. For example, the meaning of the last milestone that spans from September to December 2018 is unclear.

Current Position within Roadmap: Notable achievements obtained by the organization are not evident. The current stage of development is not clear.

Feasiblity: The goals of the platform are not clear. The milestones set out in the roadmap are not adequately described. Considering that there is no indication of technical development with regards to the wallet and alpha version of the product at the time of review (June 2018), the potential for the organization to achieve future milestones within the specified time frame seems low.

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?

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)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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:
1.3

Market

Target User Base: It is stated in the whitepaper that the Neapolis ecosystem will serve three types of participants: investors, entrepreneurs, and the Pharmamedic system itself. The meaning of the “Pharmamedic system” in relation to the target user base is not clear. The demographic of the platform is difficult to determine. It seems as though the platform caters towards those that would like to benefit/invest in financial services that pertain to the health care industry.

Market Penetration Potential: When considering the low quality of the whitepaper, the potential for the platform to have success in its target market seems unfavorable.

Direct Competition: Direct competitors are difficult to assess. The purpose and goals of the platform are not clear.

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are not evident/indeterminate.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, the potential for disruption with the implementation of blockchain technology is indeterminate. This is due to the fact that the whitepaper is obfuscated to such a degree that the implementation of blockchain technology and how it will benefit the platform is not clear.

Long-Term Vision: It seems as though the organization is capitalizing on the hype surrounding cryptocurrency and blockchain technology in order to raise funds. The purpose of the platform is not clear and it is inferred from the whitepaper that the organization does not seem to have a thorough understanding of how blockchain technology will be used.

 

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...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly 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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.
Market Score:
1.3

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Neapolis Holding Ltd is the organization that is responsible for developing iCashweb. The company is established in London, United Kingdom. It is unclear if the organization has received signifcant investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 12 individuals and 1 advisor is presented on the company website. The team structure is outlined as follows:

Egidio Simonelli | President

Adele Quattrociocchi | Vice President

Anila Pepa | Chief Information Officer

Stefano De Rubis | Architect Services Manager

Mahendra Varma | Project Manager

Ingrid Bastidas | Community Manager

Carlos Ponticelli | Chief Strategic Operations

Meilyn Plaza | Copywriter Editor

Juan Gutierrez | Art Director

Nishad Vadgama | Developer

Mayursinh Vaghela | Designer

Benjamín Calderón | Head Of UX / UI

Only one team member (the President) shows affiliation with Pharmamedic and Neapolis. The rest of the team members do not show their involvement with the project. As such, the team seems uncommitted to the project.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Many of the links provided for the LinkedIn profiles of team members do not work. Additionally, some links simply direct to the company website instead of the LinkedIn profiles. Bio descriptions are not included for team members and the level of information presented on LinkedIn profiles for most team members is quite low.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Relevance of team member’s previous work experience is uncertain due to the lack of information presented. The president of the organization has previous experience working in executive positions for organizations that do not seem to have clear relevance to the project. There seems to be a lack of individuals with expertise in the health care industry.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a significant lack of individuals with a technical position. There is only one developer on the team and there does not seem to be any team members with prior experience with blockchain 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).

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
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..."]).

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (many absent online profiles or hardly any information).
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely 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:
1.2

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: There is a specific section in the whitepaper that addresses the value proposition of iCashweb tokens. iCashweb will be used as a new type of investment vehicle, where users will be able to propose investment activities to the Health-Care investment fund. The value proposition of the token is indeterminate due to the confusing description of how ICW tokens will be used. For example it is stated that “iCashweb tokens in addition to guarantee the services of the platform Pharmamedic allows the continuous re-evaluation of its investment and that basically transforms the health expenditure in inversion”. As such, the inherent value of the tokens are uncertain.

Token Economy: Total supply: 300 million iCW

Further details of the token economy are not clearly described. Earn/spend mechanisms are vague and the roles of each participant in context with the token economy is unclear.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform claims to use the concept of “Collective Intelligence”, which supposedly decentralizes governance. However, the governance structure is not outlined. It seems as though token holders will have some sort of voting privileges, but the voting mechanism is not explicitly outlined. The organization claims that “by making sure that every user can democratically assess the risk, make a decision on the initial investment determined by both the Pharmamedic platform and the opinion of other participants on the market”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 2,140,000 ICW (21,400 ETH)
Hard cap: 16,134,300 ICW (161,343 ETH)

ICW = 0.01 ETH

The raise amounts have no relation to development plans and seem nonsensical.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): Fund allocation is not clearly presented.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
50% – ICO
25% – System Pharmamedic (pre-ICO)
10% – Reserve
10% – Founding team
5% – Advisors

It is stated that tokens that are allocated to the team and advisors are locked for 6 months. The use of the reserve fund is not adequately 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Token issued for fundraising purposes only. Unclear how or when token will have any kind of real value.
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).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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:
1.3

Use this code to share the ratings on your website