iCasting

Developing a community where talents & clients are fully in control of their own personal profile data and financial transactions.

About iCasting

iCasting is a talent ecosystem that caters towards semi-professionals and amateurs. The platform will match clients/talents and will utilize a reputation program. TLNT tokens are used to gain premium access on the platform (Ether and various fiat currencies will also be supported on the platform).

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.5
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper relies heavily on visual content and reads somewhat like a marketing brochure. The technology plan of the platform is presented with fairly low levels of detail. Business-related aspects of the platform are discussed, but specific details are absent. A discussion regarding potential competitors are not included. The GitHub page is presented, but is limited to a single repository for the company website. Legal content is lacking.

Readability: The document has fairly low levels of written content and is easy to read.

Transparency: In the whitepaper it is stated that the technical architecture of the platform is available on the company GitHub page. However, upon closer investigation, it appears that there is only a single repository that contains content for the company website. The current status with regards to the technical development of the platform are not discussed thoroughly.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The commercial potential of the platform is described by the platform’s potential (and existing) sources of revenue: – Service fee – Advertisement revenue – Premium accounts – In-platform purchases – Partnerships – Third-party integrations It is claimed that the platform service fee will be “”way lower than any agency fee around””, but the specific fee structure is not outlined. The organization claims that service fees will be calculated on a job-by-job basis, but the method in which service fees will be assessed is not discussed. During iCasting Events, partners are able to purchase exposure (stands, workshops) and sell featured products in the iCasting Academy courses and lessons. API integration and calls may benefit other parties in the future via the platform’s database of users. It is stated that monthly costs can be charged for this service. The marketing strategy is discussed adequately. Market research is somewhat lacking.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: It is stated that “”iCasting is completely built on scalable, open-source techniques like MEAN stack and React native””. Data storage will be accomplished via IPFS. Further details are not discussed in the whitepaper. A discussion as to why Ethereum was used as the blockchain solution is not thoroughly discussed and compared with alternate solutions. Messages on the platform will use the Whisper communication protocol. Overall, technical components of the platform are discussed with brief detail.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal content is limited to a short disclaimer included towards the end of the whitepaper. KYC will be used for the token sale, but the details of the procedure are not outlined.

Documentation Market

Product

2.3
Product
Differentiation

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

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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
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: Compared to other platforms that allow freelancers/semi-professionals/amateurs to monetize their talents, there does not seem to be any standout features that iCasting has that distinguishes itself among its competitors.

Readiness: According to the whitepaper, the existing platform has over 140,000 registers talents and over 1,500 clients. However, when investigating the mobile (Android) application, it is found that the application has only been download approximately 100 times.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 2013 – First round of funding – €330.000 – Company registration – Opening of iCasting office – Employment of iCasting team – Development iCasting beta 2014 – Second round of funding €330.000 – Team expansion – Development of iCasting 1.0 2015 – Third round of funding €740.000 – Launch of iCasting in The Netherlands – Partnership RTL (largest TV network in the NL) & Fedde le Grand – Start marketing campaign NL 2016 – Development iCasting 2.0 – Marketing campaign NL – User database growth to 75.000+ talents & 850+ clients 2017 – Fourth round of funding €625.000 – Launch of iCasting.tv – Release of iCasting 2.0: improved user experience and more advanced backend system – User database growth to 140.000+ talents & 1500 clients – Development mobile iOS and Android app beta – Welcoming of blockchain experts to iCasting team Q1 2018 – Technical upgrade of database and servers for global launch – Launch of iCasting.io teaser website – Development of Talent Token & smart contracts Q2 2018 – ICO campaign launch (including white paper & ICO website iCasting.io) – US talents & clients sign up integration – Private presale & whitelist presale Talent Token Q3 2018 – Talent Token & smart contract beta integration Q4 2018 – The ICO – Launch of Talent Token – Users receive wallets & Talent Tokens Q1 2019 – Smart contract integration – International launch Phase 1 – Talent Token listed at cryptocurrency exchanges Q2 to Q4 2019 – Extended blockchain features integration – Global expansion – Global marketing & PR campaign 2020 – iCasting API available for third party integrations Overall milestones are presented and funding rounds are disclosed. There is a good balance between business and technology focused milestones. Business related milestones are presented with sufficient detail. Technology focused milestones, such as “”smart contract integration”” could be elaborated on.

Current Position within Roadmap: The traditional platform exists and is functional and also has an existing user base. Blockchain implementation is still underway and in at the conceptualization stage of development.

Feasiblity: The platform does not seem particularly technologically complex, thus the feasibility of accomplishing the goals set out according to the roadmap seem reasonable, especially considering that the core functionality of the platform already exists and the team has a strong marketing background which would assist with the business development of the platform.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation with respect to blockchain technology.

Product Company and Team

Market

2.3
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...

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.

Market

Target User Base: The company claims that casting agencies focus on searching for top-tier talent, which causes the booking process to be time intensive and costly. The platform is targeted towards semi-professionals and amateurs which have much less exposure allows the current market to be expanded.

Market Penetration Potential: Solutions that cater towards semi-professionals and amateurs definitely exist, but a well-known marketplace for this sector has yet to be established. Thus the ability for the platform to target these individuals and gain considerable market share is possible, but requires a good strategy as it competes with other blockchain-backed projects.

Direct Competition: Specific competitors are not discussed in the whitepaper. However, there are a number of blockchain-based projects that aim to create a marketplace that allows the distributed marketplace for talent/services. Potential competitors include (but are not limited to): – Blocklancer – Coinlancer – FreelancerCoin – CryptoTask – Talao – MDL

Solution Advantage: The platform does not seem to provide a significant advantage compared to similar platforms on a technical level. The platform may be able to gain adoption more quickly due to the fact the organization owns a marketing agency, which can effectively promote the platform (which already has an existing user base). However, the platform itself does not seem to have a notable feature or advantage.

Blockchain Disruption: There are clear benefits that blockchain technology can bring to the casting sector, but the level of disruption that it will bring seems lower compared to other areas of interest (banking, distributed Internet, EHR, etc).

Long-Term Vision: Based on the whitepaper, it seems as though the platform is aiming to gain accesses to funds by vaguely making claims to implement blockchain technology into the existing product, as opposed to using blockchain technology to fundamentally change the nature of the platform.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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?

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

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: iCasting was founded in 2013 and the company launched their platform in 2015. The company has gone through four rounds of funding and has a sizable team.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 19 individuals are listed on the company website, along with a short bio description and links to LinkedIn profiles. The team structure is outlined as follows: Erwin Arkema | Founder & CEO Bob Breeman | Founder & COO Joris van Hittersum | Founder & CCO Yillmaz Schoen | Founder (CEO TradeCast.tv) Owen Hardy | CTO Viktor van Dijk | Creative Director Vincent Meijer | Project Manager Mark van der Hoop | Senior Blockchain Developer Rick Nijstad | Senior Developer Jos Dalhuisen | Developer Jesse Spenkelink | Developer Jorrit Tempelman | Developer Sander Polman – Business Sidekick Jesson Honig – Full Stack Designer Nanja Smit – Community Manager Ilona Bosch – Marketing & Communication Officer Jochem van de Weg – Marketing & Communication Officer Mitchell Peels – Marketing & Communication Officer Marije Herder – Office Manager Investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the C-level executives show that most team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. The Senior Blockchain Developer does not show involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profile. Commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Team members and advisors are presented in the whitepaper with short bio descriptions (3-6 sentences). LinkedIn profiles are also provided through the company website. There is either no information presented regarding current/prior work experiences for most team members (C-level executives were investigated). Otherwise, there a generic description of the organization is included. Individuals with a developer position on the team provide minimal content on their LinkedIn profiles. Team member GitHub profiles are not presented.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: From a marketing perspective, the team is well equipped. The organization owns an advertising agency which has operated since 2001 and has over 40 marketing professionals. The CTO has experience working as a software engineer for a media agency but there are not team members on the team with verifiable blockchain-related experience (including the Senior Blockchain Developer).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team seems to have a strong set of individuals that are experienced with marketing and business development. The skill set of the team members with a technical position are more difficult to assess overall since there is a lack of information presented on their LinkedIn profiles. There is a lack of team members with blockchain-related expertise, however, the project does not seem to require a significant amount of manpower from a blockchain development perspective. Overall, the team is fairly balanced.

Strategic Partnerships: Specific partnerships/launch partners are not listed.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.7
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: It is stated that “”Talent bookings on iCasting are made using Ether (ETH), Talent Tokens (TLNT) or fiat currencies like USD and EUR””. Tokens are used to gain premium access to the platform which includes “”skipping adds, gaining extra job information, sending PM’s to clients, unlocking iCasting Academy lessons, buying goods and merchandise on iCasting events, signing up for workshops””. Overall, the value proposition of the token is quite weak.

Token Economy: Total supply: 350,000,000 TLNT The token economics of the platform are outlined fairly briefly. The expected cost of various aspects of the platform are not discussed and the fee structure is not outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): Users that make contributions to the platform (customer service, screening of clients and jobs and the rating of (new) profiles) will be rewarded. However, the governance structure of the organization is not outlined. Decentralization does not seem to be a core principle of the platform.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 2,000,000 EUR Hard cap: 13,750,000 EUR The organization claims that the hard cap of the ICO is justified in order to “”to grow [the] team, expand [the] platform to international markets and create the greatest global talent ecosystem based on blockchain technology””. Further details are not outlined that justifies the somewhat high hard cap. The marketing plan is only described qualitatively.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 35% – Marketing 25% – Technical development 15% – Product roll-out 15% – General and admission 10% – Database expansion The marketing plan is discussed in more detail but primarily in quantitative terms.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 55% – Available for purchase 12% – Founders and team 5% – Investors 5% – iCasting bounty 4% – Advisors and ambassadors 19% – Bonus If less more than 60% tokens are sold, unsold tokens will be burned. Otherwise, the organization will have a second crowdsale (the details of which are not outlined). The vesting structure is outlined as follows: The 12% of tokens for the founders and the team will be locked by a smart contract. 50% of tokens will be locked for 6 months and 50% for 12 months after reaching the cryptocurrency exchange.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper relies heavily on visual content and reads somewhat like a marketing brochure. The technology plan of the platform is presented with fairly low levels of detail. Business-related aspects of the platform are discussed, but specific details are absent. A discussion regarding potential competitors are not included. The GitHub page is presented, but is limited to a single repository for the company website. Legal content is lacking.

Readability: The document has fairly low levels of written content and is easy to read.

Transparency: In the whitepaper it is stated that the technical architecture of the platform is available on the company GitHub page. However, upon closer investigation, it appears that there is only a single repository that contains content for the company website. The current status with regards to the technical development of the platform are not discussed thoroughly.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The commercial potential of the platform is described by the platform’s potential (and existing) sources of revenue: – Service fee – Advertisement revenue – Premium accounts – In-platform purchases – Partnerships – Third-party integrations It is claimed that the platform service fee will be “”way lower than any agency fee around””, but the specific fee structure is not outlined. The organization claims that service fees will be calculated on a job-by-job basis, but the method in which service fees will be assessed is not discussed. During iCasting Events, partners are able to purchase exposure (stands, workshops) and sell featured products in the iCasting Academy courses and lessons. API integration and calls may benefit other parties in the future via the platform’s database of users. It is stated that monthly costs can be charged for this service. The marketing strategy is discussed adequately. Market research is somewhat lacking.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: It is stated that “”iCasting is completely built on scalable, open-source techniques like MEAN stack and React native””. Data storage will be accomplished via IPFS. Further details are not discussed in the whitepaper. A discussion as to why Ethereum was used as the blockchain solution is not thoroughly discussed and compared with alternate solutions. Messages on the platform will use the Whisper communication protocol. Overall, technical components of the platform are discussed with brief detail.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal content is limited to a short disclaimer included towards the end of the whitepaper. KYC will be used for the token sale, but the details of the procedure are not outlined.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.5

Product

Differentiation: Compared to other platforms that allow freelancers/semi-professionals/amateurs to monetize their talents, there does not seem to be any standout features that iCasting has that distinguishes itself among its competitors.

Readiness: According to the whitepaper, the existing platform has over 140,000 registers talents and over 1,500 clients. However, when investigating the mobile (Android) application, it is found that the application has only been download approximately 100 times.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 2013 – First round of funding – €330.000 – Company registration – Opening of iCasting office – Employment of iCasting team – Development iCasting beta 2014 – Second round of funding €330.000 – Team expansion – Development of iCasting 1.0 2015 – Third round of funding €740.000 – Launch of iCasting in The Netherlands – Partnership RTL (largest TV network in the NL) & Fedde le Grand – Start marketing campaign NL 2016 – Development iCasting 2.0 – Marketing campaign NL – User database growth to 75.000+ talents & 850+ clients 2017 – Fourth round of funding €625.000 – Launch of iCasting.tv – Release of iCasting 2.0: improved user experience and more advanced backend system – User database growth to 140.000+ talents & 1500 clients – Development mobile iOS and Android app beta – Welcoming of blockchain experts to iCasting team Q1 2018 – Technical upgrade of database and servers for global launch – Launch of iCasting.io teaser website – Development of Talent Token & smart contracts Q2 2018 – ICO campaign launch (including white paper & ICO website iCasting.io) – US talents & clients sign up integration – Private presale & whitelist presale Talent Token Q3 2018 – Talent Token & smart contract beta integration Q4 2018 – The ICO – Launch of Talent Token – Users receive wallets & Talent Tokens Q1 2019 – Smart contract integration – International launch Phase 1 – Talent Token listed at cryptocurrency exchanges Q2 to Q4 2019 – Extended blockchain features integration – Global expansion – Global marketing & PR campaign 2020 – iCasting API available for third party integrations Overall milestones are presented and funding rounds are disclosed. There is a good balance between business and technology focused milestones. Business related milestones are presented with sufficient detail. Technology focused milestones, such as “”smart contract integration”” could be elaborated on.

Current Position within Roadmap: The traditional platform exists and is functional and also has an existing user base. Blockchain implementation is still underway and in at the conceptualization stage of development.

Feasiblity: The platform does not seem particularly technologically complex, thus the feasibility of accomplishing the goals set out according to the roadmap seem reasonable, especially considering that the core functionality of the platform already exists and the team has a strong marketing background which would assist with the business development of the platform.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation with respect to blockchain technology.

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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
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:
2.3

Market

Target User Base: The company claims that casting agencies focus on searching for top-tier talent, which causes the booking process to be time intensive and costly. The platform is targeted towards semi-professionals and amateurs which have much less exposure allows the current market to be expanded.

Market Penetration Potential: Solutions that cater towards semi-professionals and amateurs definitely exist, but a well-known marketplace for this sector has yet to be established. Thus the ability for the platform to target these individuals and gain considerable market share is possible, but requires a good strategy as it competes with other blockchain-backed projects.

Direct Competition: Specific competitors are not discussed in the whitepaper. However, there are a number of blockchain-based projects that aim to create a marketplace that allows the distributed marketplace for talent/services. Potential competitors include (but are not limited to): – Blocklancer – Coinlancer – FreelancerCoin – CryptoTask – Talao – MDL

Solution Advantage: The platform does not seem to provide a significant advantage compared to similar platforms on a technical level. The platform may be able to gain adoption more quickly due to the fact the organization owns a marketing agency, which can effectively promote the platform (which already has an existing user base). However, the platform itself does not seem to have a notable feature or advantage.

Blockchain Disruption: There are clear benefits that blockchain technology can bring to the casting sector, but the level of disruption that it will bring seems lower compared to other areas of interest (banking, distributed Internet, EHR, etc).

Long-Term Vision: Based on the whitepaper, it seems as though the platform is aiming to gain accesses to funds by vaguely making claims to implement blockchain technology into the existing product, as opposed to using blockchain technology to fundamentally change the nature of the platform.

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...

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.
Market Score:
2.3

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: iCasting was founded in 2013 and the company launched their platform in 2015. The company has gone through four rounds of funding and has a sizable team.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 19 individuals are listed on the company website, along with a short bio description and links to LinkedIn profiles. The team structure is outlined as follows: Erwin Arkema | Founder & CEO Bob Breeman | Founder & COO Joris van Hittersum | Founder & CCO Yillmaz Schoen | Founder (CEO TradeCast.tv) Owen Hardy | CTO Viktor van Dijk | Creative Director Vincent Meijer | Project Manager Mark van der Hoop | Senior Blockchain Developer Rick Nijstad | Senior Developer Jos Dalhuisen | Developer Jesse Spenkelink | Developer Jorrit Tempelman | Developer Sander Polman – Business Sidekick Jesson Honig – Full Stack Designer Nanja Smit – Community Manager Ilona Bosch – Marketing & Communication Officer Jochem van de Weg – Marketing & Communication Officer Mitchell Peels – Marketing & Communication Officer Marije Herder – Office Manager Investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the C-level executives show that most team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. The Senior Blockchain Developer does not show involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profile. Commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Team members and advisors are presented in the whitepaper with short bio descriptions (3-6 sentences). LinkedIn profiles are also provided through the company website. There is either no information presented regarding current/prior work experiences for most team members (C-level executives were investigated). Otherwise, there a generic description of the organization is included. Individuals with a developer position on the team provide minimal content on their LinkedIn profiles. Team member GitHub profiles are not presented.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: From a marketing perspective, the team is well equipped. The organization owns an advertising agency which has operated since 2001 and has over 40 marketing professionals. The CTO has experience working as a software engineer for a media agency but there are not team members on the team with verifiable blockchain-related experience (including the Senior Blockchain Developer).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team seems to have a strong set of individuals that are experienced with marketing and business development. The skill set of the team members with a technical position are more difficult to assess overall since there is a lack of information presented on their LinkedIn profiles. There is a lack of team members with blockchain-related expertise, however, the project does not seem to require a significant amount of manpower from a blockchain development perspective. Overall, the team is fairly balanced.

Strategic Partnerships: Specific partnerships/launch partners are not listed.

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).

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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?

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

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

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

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: It is stated that “”Talent bookings on iCasting are made using Ether (ETH), Talent Tokens (TLNT) or fiat currencies like USD and EUR””. Tokens are used to gain premium access to the platform which includes “”skipping adds, gaining extra job information, sending PM’s to clients, unlocking iCasting Academy lessons, buying goods and merchandise on iCasting events, signing up for workshops””. Overall, the value proposition of the token is quite weak.

Token Economy: Total supply: 350,000,000 TLNT The token economics of the platform are outlined fairly briefly. The expected cost of various aspects of the platform are not discussed and the fee structure is not outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): Users that make contributions to the platform (customer service, screening of clients and jobs and the rating of (new) profiles) will be rewarded. However, the governance structure of the organization is not outlined. Decentralization does not seem to be a core principle of the platform.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 2,000,000 EUR Hard cap: 13,750,000 EUR The organization claims that the hard cap of the ICO is justified in order to “”to grow [the] team, expand [the] platform to international markets and create the greatest global talent ecosystem based on blockchain technology””. Further details are not outlined that justifies the somewhat high hard cap. The marketing plan is only described qualitatively.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 35% – Marketing 25% – Technical development 15% – Product roll-out 15% – General and admission 10% – Database expansion The marketing plan is discussed in more detail but primarily in quantitative terms.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 55% – Available for purchase 12% – Founders and team 5% – Investors 5% – iCasting bounty 4% – Advisors and ambassadors 19% – Bonus If less more than 60% tokens are sold, unsold tokens will be burned. Otherwise, the organization will have a second crowdsale (the details of which are not outlined). The vesting structure is outlined as follows: The 12% of tokens for the founders and the team will be locked by a smart contract. 50% of tokens will be locked for 6 months and 50% for 12 months after reaching the cryptocurrency exchange.

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Token Economics Score:
2.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website