OncoPower

Aims to build an autonomous global ecosystem enabling personalized treatment and precision medicine for millions of cancer patients

About OncoPower

Witty Health aims to develop OncoPower, which utilizes a private clinical care platform (Onco-Klinic) and a patient community space (Onco-Space). Onco tokens are used to reward users that create value within the OncoPower ecosystem. The platform will host user data (drug toxicity monitoring, device data, and genetic data), as well as data regarding cancer drugs, and will be used in conjunction within the OncoPower platform in order to “help cancer patients with advocacy, education, meaningful connections, survivorship, support groups and community building”. OncoPower aims to improve cancer care and use data analytics in order to “find personalized and precision medicine”.
Witty Health is also developing a smart cancer treatment solution (Smart CTP), which is an application for drug-specific prescription and side-effect monitoring and will be integrated into the OncoPower ecosystem.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.2
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Discussion regarding the problem at hand is thorough and coherent and an evaluation on the market landscape including a comparison of potential competitors is also included. The value created from the platform is adequately discussed. Technical details of the platform that are presented in the whitepaper are moderately comprehensive. Specific details such as data storage and search functions are discussed along with details regarding specific technical implementation. With respect to the business model and the token economics, projections of market penetration are included as well as revenue streams. Team information is presented in the whitepaper and the company website. The company GitHub page is not presented. Legal content is somewhat lacking.

Readability: The whitepaper is somewhat lengthy and takes time to read. The organization of the document could be improved since the explanation of the solution is not quite clear.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. However most aspects of the platform are presented in the whitepaper with various degrees of detail. There are no clear signs of obfuscation or indication of diliberately misleading the reader.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Financial projections are included, along with the assumptions that the organization used. It is stated that “OncoPower would pursue all available revenue-streams: precision drugs, medication adherence, clinical studies, outcome-based payment models, data analytics and advertising revenue from the pharmaceutical, medical device, and health insurance industries”. However, aspects of these revenue streams are primarily discussed on a surface level: more detail would be desirable. Token inflation rate is discussed with specific detail.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: In the whitepaper it is stated that “a detailed white paper on the technical architecture is available separately”. However, at the time of review (June 2018), this technical document was not available. Data will be stored in a centralized manner via Amazon ElastiCasche (Redis) for PHI content and AWS S3 for non-PHI content. It is stated that “data will be migrated over [to the blockchain] as soon as an alternative, scalable solution is offered” and that the organization plans to “use off-Blockchain storage like Filecoin or Swarm when it is appropriate”. The more specific technical content refers to a fairly generic description of various aspects of blockchain technology (Asymmetric/Public-Key Cryptography, Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Sybil Attacks) as opposed to the unique aspects and technical implementation of the proposed solution.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a very brief (6 sentences) legal disclaimer that can be found towards the beginning of the whitepaper which states that the whitepaper is not a general solicitation of investment nor an offer of sale of securities.

Documentation Market

Product

2.0
Product
Differentiation

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

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 blockchain-based social media platforms, OncoPower combines the data collected from users along with drug information in order to create content and communities which focus on oncology.

Readiness: The current stage of development is unclear and is inadquately discussed in the whitepaper. It appears at this time, the platform is primarily an idea.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented as follows: Q4 2016 – Incorporation of Witty Health Q1 2017 – Concept of Incentivized Cancer Platform Q3 2017 – Launch of Cancer Treatment Platform (CTP) Q4 2017 – OncoPower blockchain memorandum Q1 2018 – Launch of OncoPower patient site, and initiation of clinical trial process for SmartCTP Q2 2018 – SEC compliant Offering, Onco-Space-beta Q3 2018 – OncoPower- beta and the clinical study for SmartCTP begins Q4 2018 – Integration of SmartCTP to OncoPower, and achieve 100,000 user enrollments Q1 2019 – Launch of full validated OncoPower product, and achieve 200,000 user enrollments Q2 2019 – Partnership with payers, health systems and pharma brands Q3 2019 – Opens developer portal, and second SEC compliant offering Q4 2019 – Optimization of technology for one million users, and achieve 500,000 user enrollments Overall milestones are presented, but there is a significant lack of technilogically focused milestones. For the milestones presented, sufficient detail is provided.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most of the development of the platform itself has primarily been conceputal. Notable technical achievements are minimal and the organization has much development from a business and technology perspective still to do.

Feasiblity: There does not seem to be any clear indivation that the organization will not be able to meet the deadlines for the milestones presented on the roadmap. Furthermore, with the exception of decentralized data storage, the platform does not seem to be exeedingly technically complex.

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

Product Company and Team

Market

2.0
Market
Target User Base

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Tiny or indeterminate.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

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

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Blockchain Disruption

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

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

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

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the product(s) is fairly limited and is focused (initially) on those that are interested in participating in an ecosystem focused on oncology.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration is specifically addressed with relevant assumptions in the whitepaper. However, there are large number of competing solutions and the competitive advantage of OncoPower is somewhat weak.

Direct Competition: The following competitors are discussed in the whitepaper: – PokitDok – Patientory – GlobalHealthCoin – Bowhead Health – Healthcoin – Hashed Health – BlockChain Health – PatientsLikeMe – WebMD – Steem

Solution Advantage: When compared to platform such as Steem and other blockchain-based social media platforms, OncoPower claims to differ by being “related to real life activity”. This justification is quite weak. However, the organization claims that Onco tokens will be SEC compliant, which is quite significant if accomplished.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, blockchain technology is primarily being used to generate tokens which which drive users to create value within the OncoPower. The problem is discussed adequately. The potential for disruption (as described by the solution) is considerable, but there are many solutions with the similar goals.

Long-Term Vision: Once gaining traction in the cancer sector, the organization believes that “the OncoPower concept is scalable to other attractive therapeutic markets such as Respiratory, Nephrology/ Urology, and Cardiovascular conditions”.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.0
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
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..."]).

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.

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: The parent company for the project is Witty Health, which is a for-profit company that was founded on September 22, 2016 and has gone through a funding round.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 6 team members along with 9 advisors is presented on the company website. The core team structure is outlined as follows: Karthik Koduru, MD: Co-founder/Chief Oncologist Whitney Ahneman: Co-founder/Lead-cancer nutrition Bridget Krueger: Lead-Patient Experience Alice Ceacareanu, Ph.D: Lead-Clinical Development Manoj Reddy, MD: Radiation Oncologist Govardhanan Nagaiah, MD: Medical Oncologist All team members are concurrent involved with other projects/organizations. Thus, commitment to the project is questionable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Information on the team members is presented fairly briefly in the whitepaper (1-2 sentences). Two of the six core team members present low levels of details with regards to prior work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most team members are professionals in the health care industry. Project requirements entail expertise in the business and technological development in the blockchain space. Relevance to team member’s previous experience and skill set is lacking in this regard.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team skill set is severely skewed towards medical professionals as opposed to technical and business development, regulatory compliance, finance, etc. There is a lack of individuals with blockchain-related expertise.

Strategic Partnerships: Specific strategic partnerships or launch partners are not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.0
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
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 “everyone who contributes to the OncoPower should receive pro-rata reward so that it becomes a perpetually growing community that builds value autonomously”. It is not clear whether Onco tokens are necessary to access the content within the OncoPower ecosystem. The inherent value of the token (as opposed to using a more well-known cryptocurrency) is seemingly contrived.

Token Economy: The platform will not utilize transaction fees. The inflation mechanism is specifically outlined: “OncoPower will begin creating new tokens at a yearly inflation rate of 9.5%. The inflation rate decreases at a rate of 0.01% every 250,000 blocks, or about 0.5% per year. The inflation will continue decreasing until the overall inflation rate reaches 0.95% in about 20 years from the time of launch”. Newly minted coins are distributed as follows: 60% – Rewards pool 15% – Vested Onco holders 10% – Administrators 15% – Comunnity Reserve

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that the onco-ecosystem is “entirely owned and managed by the comunnity” while following HIPAA compliance requirements. The three consensus protocols used within the ecosystem are discussed with low levels of detail: Onco-Klinic – oncologist-only consensus algorithm randomly selecting highest vested Onco holders from a panel of oncologists for all decision making Onco-Space – consensus algorithm selecting a panel of the highest vested Onco holders from all stakeholders including oncologists, patients, support groups, survivors, and researchers OncoPower – comprised of a panel of 90% oncologists and 10% non-oncologists to start and gradually adds a percentage of non-oncologist stakeholders until the ratio is 50:50 Users will be able to vest Onco tokens, where “the amount of vested Onco will determine the influence that the members have on the Ecosystem”. However, specific details are lacking. Data will be stored using centralized means until distributed solutions are viable.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): It is stated that OncoPower isn’t conducting any ICO, but will offer a ” Onco Token sale according SEC compliant offering” which allows the organization to sell up to $50 million in a 12-month calendar year.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in brief detail as follows: 10% – Legal and Security * OncoPower is operating in highly regulated healthcare industry. Compliance with the FDA regulations, SEC and oncology regulatory entities will be a top priority. The budget is allocated to cover existing and any new regulatory laws applicable to all aspects of compliance requirements. 10% – Administration * To ensure day-to-day operations run smoothly as the project grows. 50% – Development * Development for OncoPower, including core team and community developers. 15% – Marketing * OncoPower key strategy for industry buy in patient acquisition via organic community growth and launch an incentivized referral program. 15% – Reg A+ Financing * The cost of preparation of offering document and any potential compliance issues

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented as follows: 60% – Investors 20% – Developers 15% – Community 5% – Gifts and Referrals Vesting periods are described as follows: Platform developer’s tokens have a 6-month cliff with a 24-month vesting schedule.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Discussion regarding the problem at hand is thorough and coherent and an evaluation on the market landscape including a comparison of potential competitors is also included. The value created from the platform is adequately discussed. Technical details of the platform that are presented in the whitepaper are moderately comprehensive. Specific details such as data storage and search functions are discussed along with details regarding specific technical implementation. With respect to the business model and the token economics, projections of market penetration are included as well as revenue streams. Team information is presented in the whitepaper and the company website. The company GitHub page is not presented. Legal content is somewhat lacking.

Readability: The whitepaper is somewhat lengthy and takes time to read. The organization of the document could be improved since the explanation of the solution is not quite clear.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. However most aspects of the platform are presented in the whitepaper with various degrees of detail. There are no clear signs of obfuscation or indication of diliberately misleading the reader.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Financial projections are included, along with the assumptions that the organization used. It is stated that “OncoPower would pursue all available revenue-streams: precision drugs, medication adherence, clinical studies, outcome-based payment models, data analytics and advertising revenue from the pharmaceutical, medical device, and health insurance industries”. However, aspects of these revenue streams are primarily discussed on a surface level: more detail would be desirable. Token inflation rate is discussed with specific detail.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: In the whitepaper it is stated that “a detailed white paper on the technical architecture is available separately”. However, at the time of review (June 2018), this technical document was not available. Data will be stored in a centralized manner via Amazon ElastiCasche (Redis) for PHI content and AWS S3 for non-PHI content. It is stated that “data will be migrated over [to the blockchain] as soon as an alternative, scalable solution is offered” and that the organization plans to “use off-Blockchain storage like Filecoin or Swarm when it is appropriate”. The more specific technical content refers to a fairly generic description of various aspects of blockchain technology (Asymmetric/Public-Key Cryptography, Elliptic Curve Cryptography, Sybil Attacks) as opposed to the unique aspects and technical implementation of the proposed solution.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a very brief (6 sentences) legal disclaimer that can be found towards the beginning of the whitepaper which states that the whitepaper is not a general solicitation of investment nor an offer of sale of securities.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
3.2

Product

Differentiation: Compared to other blockchain-based social media platforms, OncoPower combines the data collected from users along with drug information in order to create content and communities which focus on oncology.

Readiness: The current stage of development is unclear and is inadquately discussed in the whitepaper. It appears at this time, the platform is primarily an idea.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented as follows: Q4 2016 – Incorporation of Witty Health Q1 2017 – Concept of Incentivized Cancer Platform Q3 2017 – Launch of Cancer Treatment Platform (CTP) Q4 2017 – OncoPower blockchain memorandum Q1 2018 – Launch of OncoPower patient site, and initiation of clinical trial process for SmartCTP Q2 2018 – SEC compliant Offering, Onco-Space-beta Q3 2018 – OncoPower- beta and the clinical study for SmartCTP begins Q4 2018 – Integration of SmartCTP to OncoPower, and achieve 100,000 user enrollments Q1 2019 – Launch of full validated OncoPower product, and achieve 200,000 user enrollments Q2 2019 – Partnership with payers, health systems and pharma brands Q3 2019 – Opens developer portal, and second SEC compliant offering Q4 2019 – Optimization of technology for one million users, and achieve 500,000 user enrollments Overall milestones are presented, but there is a significant lack of technilogically focused milestones. For the milestones presented, sufficient detail is provided.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most of the development of the platform itself has primarily been conceputal. Notable technical achievements are minimal and the organization has much development from a business and technology perspective still to do.

Feasiblity: There does not seem to be any clear indivation that the organization will not be able to meet the deadlines for the milestones presented on the roadmap. Furthermore, with the exception of decentralized data storage, the platform does not seem to be exeedingly technically complex.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not contribute value or 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?

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Blockchain Innovation

What is the level of innovation and development particularly with regard to blockchain technology and its utilization? Do the project's blockchain-related developments have value beyond the company's particular platform or network?

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

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the product(s) is fairly limited and is focused (initially) on those that are interested in participating in an ecosystem focused on oncology.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration is specifically addressed with relevant assumptions in the whitepaper. However, there are large number of competing solutions and the competitive advantage of OncoPower is somewhat weak.

Direct Competition: The following competitors are discussed in the whitepaper: – PokitDok – Patientory – GlobalHealthCoin – Bowhead Health – Healthcoin – Hashed Health – BlockChain Health – PatientsLikeMe – WebMD – Steem

Solution Advantage: When compared to platform such as Steem and other blockchain-based social media platforms, OncoPower claims to differ by being “related to real life activity”. This justification is quite weak. However, the organization claims that Onco tokens will be SEC compliant, which is quite significant if accomplished.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, blockchain technology is primarily being used to generate tokens which which drive users to create value within the OncoPower. The problem is discussed adequately. The potential for disruption (as described by the solution) is considerable, but there are many solutions with the similar goals.

Long-Term Vision: Once gaining traction in the cancer sector, the organization believes that “the OncoPower concept is scalable to other attractive therapeutic markets such as Respiratory, Nephrology/ Urology, and Cardiovascular conditions”.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Tiny or indeterminate.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

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

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Blockchain Disruption

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
2.0

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The parent company for the project is Witty Health, which is a for-profit company that was founded on September 22, 2016 and has gone through a funding round.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 6 team members along with 9 advisors is presented on the company website. The core team structure is outlined as follows: Karthik Koduru, MD: Co-founder/Chief Oncologist Whitney Ahneman: Co-founder/Lead-cancer nutrition Bridget Krueger: Lead-Patient Experience Alice Ceacareanu, Ph.D: Lead-Clinical Development Manoj Reddy, MD: Radiation Oncologist Govardhanan Nagaiah, MD: Medical Oncologist All team members are concurrent involved with other projects/organizations. Thus, commitment to the project is questionable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Information on the team members is presented fairly briefly in the whitepaper (1-2 sentences). Two of the six core team members present low levels of details with regards to prior work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most team members are professionals in the health care industry. Project requirements entail expertise in the business and technological development in the blockchain space. Relevance to team member’s previous experience and skill set is lacking in this regard.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team skill set is severely skewed towards medical professionals as opposed to technical and business development, regulatory compliance, finance, etc. There is a lack of individuals with blockchain-related expertise.

Strategic Partnerships: Specific strategic partnerships or launch partners are not evident.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
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..."]).

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.

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:
2.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: It is stated that “everyone who contributes to the OncoPower should receive pro-rata reward so that it becomes a perpetually growing community that builds value autonomously”. It is not clear whether Onco tokens are necessary to access the content within the OncoPower ecosystem. The inherent value of the token (as opposed to using a more well-known cryptocurrency) is seemingly contrived.

Token Economy: The platform will not utilize transaction fees. The inflation mechanism is specifically outlined: “OncoPower will begin creating new tokens at a yearly inflation rate of 9.5%. The inflation rate decreases at a rate of 0.01% every 250,000 blocks, or about 0.5% per year. The inflation will continue decreasing until the overall inflation rate reaches 0.95% in about 20 years from the time of launch”. Newly minted coins are distributed as follows: 60% – Rewards pool 15% – Vested Onco holders 10% – Administrators 15% – Comunnity Reserve

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that the onco-ecosystem is “entirely owned and managed by the comunnity” while following HIPAA compliance requirements. The three consensus protocols used within the ecosystem are discussed with low levels of detail: Onco-Klinic – oncologist-only consensus algorithm randomly selecting highest vested Onco holders from a panel of oncologists for all decision making Onco-Space – consensus algorithm selecting a panel of the highest vested Onco holders from all stakeholders including oncologists, patients, support groups, survivors, and researchers OncoPower – comprised of a panel of 90% oncologists and 10% non-oncologists to start and gradually adds a percentage of non-oncologist stakeholders until the ratio is 50:50 Users will be able to vest Onco tokens, where “the amount of vested Onco will determine the influence that the members have on the Ecosystem”. However, specific details are lacking. Data will be stored using centralized means until distributed solutions are viable.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): It is stated that OncoPower isn’t conducting any ICO, but will offer a ” Onco Token sale according SEC compliant offering” which allows the organization to sell up to $50 million in a 12-month calendar year.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in brief detail as follows: 10% – Legal and Security * OncoPower is operating in highly regulated healthcare industry. Compliance with the FDA regulations, SEC and oncology regulatory entities will be a top priority. The budget is allocated to cover existing and any new regulatory laws applicable to all aspects of compliance requirements. 10% – Administration * To ensure day-to-day operations run smoothly as the project grows. 50% – Development * Development for OncoPower, including core team and community developers. 15% – Marketing * OncoPower key strategy for industry buy in patient acquisition via organic community growth and launch an incentivized referral program. 15% – Reg A+ Financing * The cost of preparation of offering document and any potential compliance issues

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented as follows: 60% – Investors 20% – Developers 15% – Community 5% – Gifts and Referrals Vesting periods are described as follows: Platform developer’s tokens have a 6-month cliff with a 24-month vesting schedule.

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
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:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website