NextPakk

A delivery service that allows the customer to schedule delivery within a one hour window ensuring the customer is home when the package arrives.

About NextPakk

NextPakk is a platform that aims to combine elements of sharing economics with blockchain “which users, local businesses, shoppers and retailers share both the rewards and the responsibilities”. The platform will be developed on the Stellar blockchain and eliminates the need for warehouses as well as the necessity for names and addresses on packages. Drivers will be able to earn Pakka tokens by making scheduled deliveries. Pakka tokens will be used as payment and also as collateral for packages.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.3
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.

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.

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The discussion regarding the “last mile” problem is adequately discussed. The proposed solution described with much less detail. Technical details of the platform that are provided in the whitepaper are minimal. The business development plan is outlined fairly vaguely in written portions of the document but are described more specifically in the whitepaper. The company GitHub page is presented and includes a fair number of forked repositories related to the Stellar ecosystem. Team members are presented (along with LinkedIn profiles) on the company website. Statistics and figures taken from other resources are attributed adequately. Legal content is available.

Readability: The document is enjoyable to read and does not contain an overuse of buzzword or technical jargon.

Transparency: The whitepaper fails to disclose technical details of the platform or provide a thorough discussion with regards to the current stage of development. The limitations of the platform are not thoroughly discussed and an evaluation on direct competitors is absent.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: There is a brief section that outlines the marketing plan. The marketing plan is described fairly briefly and the entirety of the discussion is contained within one paragraph. However, more details, specifically with regards to the organization’s plan to physically expand, are discussed in more detail in the roadmap. It is stated that NextPakk is in the process of “forming alliances” and “will continue to run its marketing efforts on a lean, cost-efficient basis”. Specific details are not provided regarding these partnerships are not provided. With regards to the token model, fee structures are not outline and the section that discusses the token economy is quite short (approximately 3 sentences).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The justification for using the Stellar platform is discussed with low levels of detail. It is stated that Stellar was used due to its “scalability and higher throughputs than other, competing, major platforms”. A through comparison of Stellar versus other blockchain platforms is not presented. Overall, specific technical discussion of the platform is essentially non-existent.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief 2-page disclaimer included towards the beginning of the document that was last updated on March 27, 2018. Risk factors are also discussed. The KYC policy is described towards the end of the document and the company will collect the following for the token sale: name, nationality, country of residence, postal address, passport data, telephone number(s), e-mail address and other

Documentation Market

Product

2.8
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).

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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: The platform differentiates itself from other delivery services by allowing for the ability to receive a package while maintaining privacy. Furthermore, it allows users to choose a pickup time that works best for them and NextPakk claims that “packages are delivered on time, or delivery is free”.

Readiness: The current stage of development is not adequately described in the whitepaper. It is stated that the organization has developed multiple MVPs and have obtained feedback from pilot projects. However, this is not discussed sufficiently in the whitepaper. Repositories are publicly available on the company GitHub page.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The development roadmap is presented as follows: Q1 2016 – Seed planted for NextPakk (Achieved) Q3 2016 – V1 of NextPakk as a physical solution (Achieved) Q1 2017 – Collected feedback from users on V1 and revisited the solution (Achieved) Q2 2017 – V2 of NextPakk solution based on shared ecosystem MVPConducted over 700 customer interviews (Achieved) Q3 2017 – Ran a pilot program involving 10+ apartment complexes (Achieved) Q4 2017 – Started work on building the platform based on blockchain (Achieved) Q1 2018 – Web app launch (Planned) Q2 2018 – Private Tokensale (Planned) Q3 2018 – ICO and token distribution (Planned) Q4 2018 – Market reach in 3 US major cities (Planned) Q2 2019 – Pakka DApps launch UK/AU/DE markets (Planned) Q4 2019 – Expansion into 10 US major cities R&D using AI in Logistics (Planned) Q4 2020 – Expansion into sub-Saharan countries (Planned) Q4 2021 – Continued worldwide integration with the global supply chain (Planned) Milestones are specific and provide quantitative details. There is a fair balance between business focused milestones and technology focused milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Based on the roadmap, the organization has managed to complete the first version of the product and has received feedback from users. The online interface is accessible on the website.

Feasiblity: The plan to launch the platform in 3 US major cities in Q4 2018 seems somewhat questionable since at the time of review (June 2018), the organization has yet to declare the 3 major cities.

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

Product Company and Team

Market

3.3
Market
Target User Base

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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.

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Long-Term Vision

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

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

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are primarily eCommerce, suppliers, and those that would be interested in gaining income by becoming a driver. As a result the demographic is fairly large.

Market Penetration Potential: There are current issues due to the “last mile” problem that is discussed well in the whitepaper. If the platform is able to successfully develop a service that can do what the organization sets out to do, consumers will be quite willing to utilize the platform. As a result, the market penetration potential is evident.

Direct Competition: Potential competitors include (but are not limited to): – Lelantos – NanoShip – PassLfix – DroneNet – Osliki

Solution Advantage: The Pakka token technology advantage is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 1. Frictionless Real-time settlement (2-5 seconds) 2. Transparent, efficient & scalable 3. Cryptographically secure transactions 4. Applications without boundaries 5. Built in Escrow functionality 6. Hostable, decentralized and trustless logistics business platform 7. Framework for conducting logistics business anywhere on the planet 8. No need for long standing contractual agreements and trusted parties If the organization is able to provide a an economically sustainable service, the advantages of decentralizing the distribution network gives the platform a competitive edge compared to existing solutions.

Blockchain Disruption: Supply chain, especially with regards to the latter portion of the process, would benefit from decentralization of the distribution channels. User experience would most likely significantly increase as a result. As such, the potential for blockchain to disrupt this sector described effectively.

Long-Term Vision: There is a section that outlines future developments of the platform including: – Label-less package delivery – NextPakk For Improving Food Security in Developing Countries Based on the milestones set out on the roadmap (specific expansion channels), the organization seems to have specific growth plan and intends to gain hold of the market in 3 major U.S cities and then expand. It is stated that the platform will have a similar affect to how Airbnb affected the hotel industry.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.3
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

2.0
N/A
2 - A couple of partnerships connected to founders or advisors.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: According to the organization’s LinkedIn page, the company is privately-held and were founded in 2016. The company describes themselves as a logistics and supply chain company. It is not clear whether the organization has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 7 individuals along with 8 advisors is presented in the whitepaper. The team structure is presented as follows: Lowell Fortune | Chief Executive Officer Sergey Tolkachev, PH.D | Chief Algorithms Officer Dileep Kamujula | Technical Advisor P.B. Stanton | Chief Legal Officer Chad Kielty | Chief Financial Officer Ryan Donelon | Chief Marketing Officer Deb Olson | Corporate Communications Officer The organization seems to lack individuals with blockchain-related expertise from both a business development and technology development, as well as regulatory compliance perspective. The CEO is concurrent involved with another project and the Chief Algorithms Officer and the Chief Legal Officer do not disclose their affiliation with the organization on their LinkedIn Profiles. The CFO is also concurrently involved with another project. Overall team commitment is questionable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All team members provide their LinkedIn profiles (there is discrepancy between the team members listed in the whitepaper and the team members listed on the company website). Overall, the level of information provided by team members on their LinkedIn profile regarding their current responsibilities and prior work experiences is moderate.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The team does not seem to have individuals that have worked closely in the supply chain industry. Furthermore the team’s skill set regarding blockchain development is limited.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a fair balance between individuals with a background/role related to business and technical development, but the number of team members with blockchain expertise is lacking.

Strategic Partnerships: The following partnerships are listed in the whitepaper as follows: – BitNautic – MilitaryToken – DiaspoCare. – 256gl – VetStoreUSA There is a description provided for each organization but the level of involvement of each partner is unclear and insufficiently discussed.

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?

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
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).

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?

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

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Pakka tokens are built on the Stellar blockchain and will be used as payment on the platform and will also be used as collateral for packages. Token use cases are not adequately described and it is not clear whether the tokens are absolutely necessary in order to use the platform.

Token Economy: Total supply: 1 billion There is a brief section (only three sentences) that described the organization’s token ecosystem fairly vaguely. It is stated that a “major portion of the network fees will be distributed among the network of nodes based on their uptime, response time, and compliance to the updates of the platform”. Transaction fees will be used for each transaction on the platform, although specific details are not outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated in the disclaimer that “Pakka does not give any right to aid in the control the direction or decision-making of NextPakk or the NextPakk Network”. The system governance is not described.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $3.2MM USD Hard cap: $137.6MM USD The use of proceeds is described very vaguely and does not adequately justify the seemingly high hard cap.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 35% – Marketing 25% – DApps development 20% – Business development and global offices 15% – R&D 5% – Legal and Administrative expenses Each criteria is discussed in more detail, albeit rather vaguely.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 30% – ICO 12$ – Pre-ICO 10% – Team 8% – Advisors 8% – User rewards/airdrops 8% – Company reserves 8% – Driver rewards 8% – Private pre-sale 5% – PDP rewards 3% – Bounty Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unknown whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The discussion regarding the “last mile” problem is adequately discussed. The proposed solution described with much less detail. Technical details of the platform that are provided in the whitepaper are minimal. The business development plan is outlined fairly vaguely in written portions of the document but are described more specifically in the whitepaper. The company GitHub page is presented and includes a fair number of forked repositories related to the Stellar ecosystem. Team members are presented (along with LinkedIn profiles) on the company website. Statistics and figures taken from other resources are attributed adequately. Legal content is available.

Readability: The document is enjoyable to read and does not contain an overuse of buzzword or technical jargon.

Transparency: The whitepaper fails to disclose technical details of the platform or provide a thorough discussion with regards to the current stage of development. The limitations of the platform are not thoroughly discussed and an evaluation on direct competitors is absent.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: There is a brief section that outlines the marketing plan. The marketing plan is described fairly briefly and the entirety of the discussion is contained within one paragraph. However, more details, specifically with regards to the organization’s plan to physically expand, are discussed in more detail in the roadmap. It is stated that NextPakk is in the process of “forming alliances” and “will continue to run its marketing efforts on a lean, cost-efficient basis”. Specific details are not provided regarding these partnerships are not provided. With regards to the token model, fee structures are not outline and the section that discusses the token economy is quite short (approximately 3 sentences).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The justification for using the Stellar platform is discussed with low levels of detail. It is stated that Stellar was used due to its “scalability and higher throughputs than other, competing, major platforms”. A through comparison of Stellar versus other blockchain platforms is not presented. Overall, specific technical discussion of the platform is essentially non-existent.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief 2-page disclaimer included towards the beginning of the document that was last updated on March 27, 2018. Risk factors are also discussed. The KYC policy is described towards the end of the document and the company will collect the following for the token sale: name, nationality, country of residence, postal address, passport data, telephone number(s), e-mail address and other

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.

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.

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
2.3

Product

Differentiation: The platform differentiates itself from other delivery services by allowing for the ability to receive a package while maintaining privacy. Furthermore, it allows users to choose a pickup time that works best for them and NextPakk claims that “packages are delivered on time, or delivery is free”.

Readiness: The current stage of development is not adequately described in the whitepaper. It is stated that the organization has developed multiple MVPs and have obtained feedback from pilot projects. However, this is not discussed sufficiently in the whitepaper. Repositories are publicly available on the company GitHub page.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The development roadmap is presented as follows: Q1 2016 – Seed planted for NextPakk (Achieved) Q3 2016 – V1 of NextPakk as a physical solution (Achieved) Q1 2017 – Collected feedback from users on V1 and revisited the solution (Achieved) Q2 2017 – V2 of NextPakk solution based on shared ecosystem MVPConducted over 700 customer interviews (Achieved) Q3 2017 – Ran a pilot program involving 10+ apartment complexes (Achieved) Q4 2017 – Started work on building the platform based on blockchain (Achieved) Q1 2018 – Web app launch (Planned) Q2 2018 – Private Tokensale (Planned) Q3 2018 – ICO and token distribution (Planned) Q4 2018 – Market reach in 3 US major cities (Planned) Q2 2019 – Pakka DApps launch UK/AU/DE markets (Planned) Q4 2019 – Expansion into 10 US major cities R&D using AI in Logistics (Planned) Q4 2020 – Expansion into sub-Saharan countries (Planned) Q4 2021 – Continued worldwide integration with the global supply chain (Planned) Milestones are specific and provide quantitative details. There is a fair balance between business focused milestones and technology focused milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Based on the roadmap, the organization has managed to complete the first version of the product and has received feedback from users. The online interface is accessible on the website.

Feasiblity: The plan to launch the platform in 3 US major cities in Q4 2018 seems somewhat questionable since at the time of review (June 2018), the organization has yet to declare the 3 major cities.

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

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).

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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:
2.8

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are primarily eCommerce, suppliers, and those that would be interested in gaining income by becoming a driver. As a result the demographic is fairly large.

Market Penetration Potential: There are current issues due to the “last mile” problem that is discussed well in the whitepaper. If the platform is able to successfully develop a service that can do what the organization sets out to do, consumers will be quite willing to utilize the platform. As a result, the market penetration potential is evident.

Direct Competition: Potential competitors include (but are not limited to): – Lelantos – NanoShip – PassLfix – DroneNet – Osliki

Solution Advantage: The Pakka token technology advantage is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 1. Frictionless Real-time settlement (2-5 seconds) 2. Transparent, efficient & scalable 3. Cryptographically secure transactions 4. Applications without boundaries 5. Built in Escrow functionality 6. Hostable, decentralized and trustless logistics business platform 7. Framework for conducting logistics business anywhere on the planet 8. No need for long standing contractual agreements and trusted parties If the organization is able to provide a an economically sustainable service, the advantages of decentralizing the distribution network gives the platform a competitive edge compared to existing solutions.

Blockchain Disruption: Supply chain, especially with regards to the latter portion of the process, would benefit from decentralization of the distribution channels. User experience would most likely significantly increase as a result. As such, the potential for blockchain to disrupt this sector described effectively.

Long-Term Vision: There is a section that outlines future developments of the platform including: – Label-less package delivery – NextPakk For Improving Food Security in Developing Countries Based on the milestones set out on the roadmap (specific expansion channels), the organization seems to have specific growth plan and intends to gain hold of the market in 3 major U.S cities and then expand. It is stated that the platform will have a similar affect to how Airbnb affected the hotel industry.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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.

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Long-Term Vision

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
3.3

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: According to the organization’s LinkedIn page, the company is privately-held and were founded in 2016. The company describes themselves as a logistics and supply chain company. It is not clear whether the organization has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 7 individuals along with 8 advisors is presented in the whitepaper. The team structure is presented as follows: Lowell Fortune | Chief Executive Officer Sergey Tolkachev, PH.D | Chief Algorithms Officer Dileep Kamujula | Technical Advisor P.B. Stanton | Chief Legal Officer Chad Kielty | Chief Financial Officer Ryan Donelon | Chief Marketing Officer Deb Olson | Corporate Communications Officer The organization seems to lack individuals with blockchain-related expertise from both a business development and technology development, as well as regulatory compliance perspective. The CEO is concurrent involved with another project and the Chief Algorithms Officer and the Chief Legal Officer do not disclose their affiliation with the organization on their LinkedIn Profiles. The CFO is also concurrently involved with another project. Overall team commitment is questionable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All team members provide their LinkedIn profiles (there is discrepancy between the team members listed in the whitepaper and the team members listed on the company website). Overall, the level of information provided by team members on their LinkedIn profile regarding their current responsibilities and prior work experiences is moderate.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The team does not seem to have individuals that have worked closely in the supply chain industry. Furthermore the team’s skill set regarding blockchain development is limited.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a fair balance between individuals with a background/role related to business and technical development, but the number of team members with blockchain expertise is lacking.

Strategic Partnerships: The following partnerships are listed in the whitepaper as follows: – BitNautic – MilitaryToken – DiaspoCare. – 256gl – VetStoreUSA There is a description provided for each organization but the level of involvement of each partner is unclear and insufficiently discussed.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

2.0
N/A
2 - A couple of partnerships connected to founders or advisors.
Company and Team Score:
2.3

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Pakka tokens are built on the Stellar blockchain and will be used as payment on the platform and will also be used as collateral for packages. Token use cases are not adequately described and it is not clear whether the tokens are absolutely necessary in order to use the platform.

Token Economy: Total supply: 1 billion There is a brief section (only three sentences) that described the organization’s token ecosystem fairly vaguely. It is stated that a “major portion of the network fees will be distributed among the network of nodes based on their uptime, response time, and compliance to the updates of the platform”. Transaction fees will be used for each transaction on the platform, although specific details are not outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated in the disclaimer that “Pakka does not give any right to aid in the control the direction or decision-making of NextPakk or the NextPakk Network”. The system governance is not described.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $3.2MM USD Hard cap: $137.6MM USD The use of proceeds is described very vaguely and does not adequately justify the seemingly high hard cap.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 35% – Marketing 25% – DApps development 20% – Business development and global offices 15% – R&D 5% – Legal and Administrative expenses Each criteria is discussed in more detail, albeit rather vaguely.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 30% – ICO 12$ – Pre-ICO 10% – Team 8% – Advisors 8% – User rewards/airdrops 8% – Company reserves 8% – Driver rewards 8% – Private pre-sale 5% – PDP rewards 3% – Bounty Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unknown whether 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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
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).

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?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Token Economics Score:
2.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website