PlayChip

The PlayChip is a decentralized payment and reward system for the PlayChip user base across its entire ecosystem of Digital Fantasy Sports and sports betting platforms.

About PlayChip

PlayChip is a sports community and gaming ecosystem . The platform will have an exchange (PlayXchange) and integration with a wallet (PlayWallet). It is stated that PLA tokens are used to “place bets and enter challenges, as reward points in the PlayUp store, and can be traded for fiat and other cryptocurrencies via partnered exchanges”.

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.

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.

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)?

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The technical whitepaper length stands at 14 pages, accompanied by a 42 pages-long Token Offering document. Both documents are fairly comprehensive, covering the gambling market, the PlayUp ecosystem and the platform flow.

Readability: The whitepapers are not obfuscated by technical terms and as a result, is fairly simple to read.

Transparency: Two potential problems of the platform are discussed: scalability of the Ethereum blockchain and market volatility. The platform plans to alleviate potential issues with the former by developing PlayChain, an off-chain network. However, there is close to no technical details provided with respect to PlayChain. Some technical aspects of the platform are not adequately discussed.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The PlayChip utilizes a freemium business model, whereby players can access the free-to-play platforms as a gateway to the pay-to-play platforms. According to PlayChip, the gambling industry standard Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) is $1,250. The PlayUp Group is currently achieving an ARPU of $1,538. In order to achieve net revenue goals of $100 million by 2019. Revenue streams presented include:
– Pay-per-play
– PlayXchange fees
– Quick Cashout premium
– Interest fees through the loaning system

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The company’s technical whitepaper contains an overview of the PLA token and its features, presenting plans of implementation and business rules regarding the interaction between the different aspects of the platform. The company GitHub page is not presented.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief section in the whitepaper that addresses the organization’s legal position. Furthermore, there are legal disclaimers towards the end of the whitepaper.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.5
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)?

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: The benefits of the platform are outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

– Larger user base
– Bigger prizes and better odds
– Incentivized user network
– Increased trust and transparency
– Reduced transaction fees

The platform allows users to buy/sell PlayChips on the PlayXchange directly from their PlayWallet, a feature that is absent from the competitors offering. Other features such as Sports betting, Casino and Backend off-chain solutions are available in part on other blockchain-focused platforms.

Readiness: The current stage of blockchain development is not adequately discussed. However, the company owns several betting platforms which are fully operational such as PlayUp, 123gaming, TopBetta and more.

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

February 2018 – ICO seed round
March 2018 – CalssicBet and Draftstars join PlatChip ecosystem
April 2018 – TopoBetta and mad Bookie join PlayChip ecosystem
May 2018 – Betting.club joins PlayChip ecosystem; Partnerships with three major rugby teams
June 2018 – Pre-ICO and international roadshow
July 2018 – International roadshow
August 2018 – PlayChip ICO and list on HitBTC and LATOKEN exchanges
September 2018 – PlayXchange launch
October 2018 – PlayUp Bet launch
November 2018 – Release of PlayWallet

Most milestones are business focused. PlayChip’s traditional betting platforms are already operating and the company has committed to release its blockchain platform by December 2018

Current Position within Roadmap: Most developments thus far have been business-focused. As such, the platform is primarily an idea from a technical development perspective.

Feasibility: The development of a cryptocurrency on an existing blockchain solution such as Ethereum is trivial. The project aims to adjust its platform to support the integration of an exchange (PlayXchange) and potentially an off-chain solution (PlayChain), which involves much more complexity. The goal of launching a working solution for the PlayXchange, and PlayWallet in September 2018 and November 2018, respectively, seems quite optimistic.

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

 

Product Company and Team

Market

2.8
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?

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 platform is targeting the online gambling industry, focused mainly on sports betting. The global revenue for online gambling was under $25B in 2009 – that number is expected to exceed $56B this year.

Market Penetration Potential: Playup has an established ecosystem of betting platforms – They are currently operating seven platforms that are available for download in 153 countries on Apple’s App Store and Google Play. It is stated that “the PlayChip is currently the exclusive cryptocurrency of the following gaming partners, with a combined turnover of $430 million and a total user base exceeding 500,000”. There is a considerable number of competitors in the traditional sector of gambling, yet PlayUp’s position is profound when compared to other blockchain-related projects.

Direct Competition: The whitepaper contains a competitive analysis, comparing PlayChip’s features to both blockchain-related betting projects and traditional companies. Potential competitors include (but are not limited to): – Wagerr – FansUnite – Betrium – Blitz Predict – Peerplays – Globaltalent – Bethereum – Game Stars – Sports Ledger – RoBET

Solution Advantage: The advantage of the platform from a feature and technology perspective when compared to potential competitors is indeterminate. However, the parent company and other organizations in its ecosystem have a considerable user base (according to claims made in the whitepaper).

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, the potential for disruption is indeterminate. The use of cryptocurrency would provide a clear advantage with respect to allowing users to quickly access funds and give DFS (Daily Fantasy Sports) players the ability to participate on a global scale, yet there is limited disruption in terms of provided features.

Long-Term Vision: The company outlines the potential of growth for PlayUp, focusing on gambling industry figures. Plans for future development are not included in the project’s documents.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.7
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Sufficently assembled and committed.
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..."]).

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Strategic Partnerships

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

3.0
N/A
3 - A few SMB's; may include founder or advisor related ventures but shows ability to expand beyond.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The parent company, PlayUp was founded in 2014 and has raised 2,500,000,000 PLA tokens during stage 1 of the token sale (seed funding). The company owns 7 different betting platforms, which generate “a $430 million turnover and a total user base exceeding 500,000”.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The company lists 21 core members as the “Full Team” in their website, along with 6 advisors (3 of whom are shown in the whitepaper). Furthermore, there are 3 distribution partner ambassadors shown on the company website and whitepaper.

The team structure is outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

Leadership team
– Daniel Simic | CEO
– Richard Sapsford | Director (non-executive)
– Michael Costa | CTO
– Prashant Arora | CFO
– Ryan Bowman | CMO
– Andrew Parramore | CPP

Advisors (as shown in the whitepaper)
– Stephane Savanah | Information Technology Consultant
– Adam Weigold | Founder, Cryptk
– Luke Lombe | Founder, Echelon One
– Jesse Merl | Founder, Major League Fantasy
– Dean Richards | Global Gaming Consultant
– Jamie Mackay | Founder, BWM Dentsu

Distribution Partner Ambassadors
– Brett Lee | Cricket Legend
– Barry Hall | AFL Legend
– Wendell Sailor | Rugby Legend

All core team memberships are currently involved with PlayUp according to their LinkedIn profiles.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All core team members do not explicitly show their involvement with PlayChip (involvement with PlayUp is shown instead). However, details regarding past work experience are provided.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: When assessing the C-level executives of the team, it is seen prior/current work experience with organizations such as PlayUp, Sportopia, TopBetta, Fantasy Sports Global (most are PlayChip’s subsidiaries) have clear alignment with the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team members’ backgrounds and experience appear to cover the project requirements adequately.

Strategic Partnerships: Existing platforms in the PlayChip ecosystem include:

– PlayUp
– Draftstars
– TopBetta
– ClassicBet
– betting.club
– Mad Bookie
– PlayUp Bet

 

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.

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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: PLA tokens will be used to “place bets and enter challenges, as reward points in the PlayUp store, and can be traded for fiat and other cryptocurrencies via partnered exchanges”. The inherent value of the token seems contrived as the earn/spend mechanisms are not outlined with specific detail other than being used as a currency in the platform.

Token Economy: Total supply: 50 billion PLA

It is stated that “PlayChip shall create an ongoing demand for the PlayChip for participation in games, challenges and bets via the PlayChip platform via a rewards bucket that incentivises user activity”. According to the company’s whitepaper, the token “will be served as a rewards token for playup.com, with a fixed value of US0.01. Players can convert the current PlayChip to rewards vouchers with affiliates including Mastercard and Amazon.” Earn/spend mechanisms are not adequately discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): System decentralization is uncertain.The project has assembled the “PlayChip Foundation” to stir the future direction of the token and “to help protect the PlayChip economy”. It is stated that funds allocated to the PlayChip Foundation will be used according to “approval from multiple parties”. Details regarding these parties and the electoral process involved with the foundation of the platform are not specified. Voting privileges are uncertain due to the lack of thorough information in the whitepaper.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $10,000,000
Hard cap: $90,000,000

1 PLAYCHIP (PLA) = US$0.01

Funding goals are justifiable when comparing the project stage to its competitors and the industry which they are operating in.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

55% – Marketing
30% – Development
6% – Operations
4% – Legal
4% – Finance
1% – Other

The project aims to direct most of the received funds into marketing activities to increase market penetration.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

25% – Public sale
25% – PlayChip Foundation Treasury
25% – Platform growth and community development
15% – Operational incentives
10% – PlayChip bet float

The tokens that are allocated to the foundation are supposedly intended to “preserve the value of the token by negating inflation, and is the mandate this non-profit foundation is built upon”.

Further details are provided for tokens allocated to operational incentives, platform development, and the PlayChip bet float.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The technical whitepaper length stands at 14 pages, accompanied by a 42 pages-long Token Offering document. Both documents are fairly comprehensive, covering the gambling market, the PlayUp ecosystem and the platform flow.

Readability: The whitepapers are not obfuscated by technical terms and as a result, is fairly simple to read.

Transparency: Two potential problems of the platform are discussed: scalability of the Ethereum blockchain and market volatility. The platform plans to alleviate potential issues with the former by developing PlayChain, an off-chain network. However, there is close to no technical details provided with respect to PlayChain. Some technical aspects of the platform are not adequately discussed.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The PlayChip utilizes a freemium business model, whereby players can access the free-to-play platforms as a gateway to the pay-to-play platforms. According to PlayChip, the gambling industry standard Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) is $1,250. The PlayUp Group is currently achieving an ARPU of $1,538. In order to achieve net revenue goals of $100 million by 2019. Revenue streams presented include:
– Pay-per-play
– PlayXchange fees
– Quick Cashout premium
– Interest fees through the loaning system

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The company’s technical whitepaper contains an overview of the PLA token and its features, presenting plans of implementation and business rules regarding the interaction between the different aspects of the platform. The company GitHub page is not presented.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief section in the whitepaper that addresses the organization’s legal position. Furthermore, there are legal disclaimers towards the end of the whitepaper.

 

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.

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.

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
3.2

Product

Differentiation: The benefits of the platform are outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

– Larger user base
– Bigger prizes and better odds
– Incentivized user network
– Increased trust and transparency
– Reduced transaction fees

The platform allows users to buy/sell PlayChips on the PlayXchange directly from their PlayWallet, a feature that is absent from the competitors offering. Other features such as Sports betting, Casino and Backend off-chain solutions are available in part on other blockchain-focused platforms.

Readiness: The current stage of blockchain development is not adequately discussed. However, the company owns several betting platforms which are fully operational such as PlayUp, 123gaming, TopBetta and more.

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

February 2018 – ICO seed round
March 2018 – CalssicBet and Draftstars join PlatChip ecosystem
April 2018 – TopoBetta and mad Bookie join PlayChip ecosystem
May 2018 – Betting.club joins PlayChip ecosystem; Partnerships with three major rugby teams
June 2018 – Pre-ICO and international roadshow
July 2018 – International roadshow
August 2018 – PlayChip ICO and list on HitBTC and LATOKEN exchanges
September 2018 – PlayXchange launch
October 2018 – PlayUp Bet launch
November 2018 – Release of PlayWallet

Most milestones are business focused. PlayChip’s traditional betting platforms are already operating and the company has committed to release its blockchain platform by December 2018

Current Position within Roadmap: Most developments thus far have been business-focused. As such, the platform is primarily an idea from a technical development perspective.

Feasibility: The development of a cryptocurrency on an existing blockchain solution such as Ethereum is trivial. The project aims to adjust its platform to support the integration of an exchange (PlayXchange) and potentially an off-chain solution (PlayChain), which involves much more complexity. The goal of launching a working solution for the PlayXchange, and PlayWallet in September 2018 and November 2018, respectively, seems quite optimistic.

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

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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

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

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Blockchain Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
2.5

Market

Target User Base: The platform is targeting the online gambling industry, focused mainly on sports betting. The global revenue for online gambling was under $25B in 2009 – that number is expected to exceed $56B this year.

Market Penetration Potential: Playup has an established ecosystem of betting platforms – They are currently operating seven platforms that are available for download in 153 countries on Apple’s App Store and Google Play. It is stated that “the PlayChip is currently the exclusive cryptocurrency of the following gaming partners, with a combined turnover of $430 million and a total user base exceeding 500,000”. There is a considerable number of competitors in the traditional sector of gambling, yet PlayUp’s position is profound when compared to other blockchain-related projects.

Direct Competition: The whitepaper contains a competitive analysis, comparing PlayChip’s features to both blockchain-related betting projects and traditional companies. Potential competitors include (but are not limited to): – Wagerr – FansUnite – Betrium – Blitz Predict – Peerplays – Globaltalent – Bethereum – Game Stars – Sports Ledger – RoBET

Solution Advantage: The advantage of the platform from a feature and technology perspective when compared to potential competitors is indeterminate. However, the parent company and other organizations in its ecosystem have a considerable user base (according to claims made in the whitepaper).

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, the potential for disruption is indeterminate. The use of cryptocurrency would provide a clear advantage with respect to allowing users to quickly access funds and give DFS (Daily Fantasy Sports) players the ability to participate on a global scale, yet there is limited disruption in terms of provided features.

Long-Term Vision: The company outlines the potential of growth for PlayUp, focusing on gambling industry figures. Plans for future development are not included in the project’s documents.

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?

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:
2.8

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The parent company, PlayUp was founded in 2014 and has raised 2,500,000,000 PLA tokens during stage 1 of the token sale (seed funding). The company owns 7 different betting platforms, which generate “a $430 million turnover and a total user base exceeding 500,000”.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The company lists 21 core members as the “Full Team” in their website, along with 6 advisors (3 of whom are shown in the whitepaper). Furthermore, there are 3 distribution partner ambassadors shown on the company website and whitepaper.

The team structure is outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

Leadership team
– Daniel Simic | CEO
– Richard Sapsford | Director (non-executive)
– Michael Costa | CTO
– Prashant Arora | CFO
– Ryan Bowman | CMO
– Andrew Parramore | CPP

Advisors (as shown in the whitepaper)
– Stephane Savanah | Information Technology Consultant
– Adam Weigold | Founder, Cryptk
– Luke Lombe | Founder, Echelon One
– Jesse Merl | Founder, Major League Fantasy
– Dean Richards | Global Gaming Consultant
– Jamie Mackay | Founder, BWM Dentsu

Distribution Partner Ambassadors
– Brett Lee | Cricket Legend
– Barry Hall | AFL Legend
– Wendell Sailor | Rugby Legend

All core team memberships are currently involved with PlayUp according to their LinkedIn profiles.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All core team members do not explicitly show their involvement with PlayChip (involvement with PlayUp is shown instead). However, details regarding past work experience are provided.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: When assessing the C-level executives of the team, it is seen prior/current work experience with organizations such as PlayUp, Sportopia, TopBetta, Fantasy Sports Global (most are PlayChip’s subsidiaries) have clear alignment with the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team members’ backgrounds and experience appear to cover the project requirements adequately.

Strategic Partnerships: Existing platforms in the PlayChip ecosystem include:

– PlayUp
– Draftstars
– TopBetta
– ClassicBet
– betting.club
– Mad Bookie
– PlayUp Bet

 

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Sufficently assembled and committed.
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..."]).

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Strategic Partnerships

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

3.0
N/A
3 - A few SMB's; may include founder or advisor related ventures but shows ability to expand beyond.
Company and Team Score:
3.7

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: PLA tokens will be used to “place bets and enter challenges, as reward points in the PlayUp store, and can be traded for fiat and other cryptocurrencies via partnered exchanges”. The inherent value of the token seems contrived as the earn/spend mechanisms are not outlined with specific detail other than being used as a currency in the platform.

Token Economy: Total supply: 50 billion PLA

It is stated that “PlayChip shall create an ongoing demand for the PlayChip for participation in games, challenges and bets via the PlayChip platform via a rewards bucket that incentivises user activity”. According to the company’s whitepaper, the token “will be served as a rewards token for playup.com, with a fixed value of US0.01. Players can convert the current PlayChip to rewards vouchers with affiliates including Mastercard and Amazon.” Earn/spend mechanisms are not adequately discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): System decentralization is uncertain.The project has assembled the “PlayChip Foundation” to stir the future direction of the token and “to help protect the PlayChip economy”. It is stated that funds allocated to the PlayChip Foundation will be used according to “approval from multiple parties”. Details regarding these parties and the electoral process involved with the foundation of the platform are not specified. Voting privileges are uncertain due to the lack of thorough information in the whitepaper.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $10,000,000
Hard cap: $90,000,000

1 PLAYCHIP (PLA) = US$0.01

Funding goals are justifiable when comparing the project stage to its competitors and the industry which they are operating in.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

55% – Marketing
30% – Development
6% – Operations
4% – Legal
4% – Finance
1% – Other

The project aims to direct most of the received funds into marketing activities to increase market penetration.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

25% – Public sale
25% – PlayChip Foundation Treasury
25% – Platform growth and community development
15% – Operational incentives
10% – PlayChip bet float

The tokens that are allocated to the foundation are supposedly intended to “preserve the value of the token by negating inflation, and is the mandate this non-profit foundation is built upon”.

Further details are provided for tokens allocated to operational incentives, platform development, and the PlayChip bet float.

 

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.

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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
Who are PlayChip's largest potential competitors and how do they compare?

 

Token Accepted Currencies ERC20 Internal off-chain backend Multiple platforms/

utility value

Integrated wallet and exchange Sports Betting DFS Casino games eSports
PlayChip USD, AUD, ETH, BTC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Planned in future
NedsCoin AUD, BTC, ETH Yes No No No Yes No No No
Wagerr Token sale closed No N/A No No Yes No Yes No
Betrium ETH Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
FansUnite ETH Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No
What is the current stage of technical development and when will content be publicly accessible on GitHub?

Development of solution architecture and technical requirements. RFQ to be submitted in a fortnight to leading blockchain developers. Plans are to release majority details on GitHub.

It is stated that an off-chain network will be used (PlayChain), which is somewhat confusing. Will PlayChain utilize blockchain technology (if so, most would consider this on-chain)? Provide further details as to what blockchain solution will be utilized and how it compares to the Ethereum blockchain.

The PlayChain is an off-chain network, and will publish a distributed ledger to the Ethereum blockchain to publicly record the transactions made on the network. This will be publicly visible on the Ethereum ledger, posted various times daily to be pre-determined based on transactions made and gas pricing. Also, a real-time ledger will be recorded on the PlayXchange.

Individual users will also be able to view a complete record of transaction history and the movement of their tokens. This will be a functionality built into the PlayWallet.

In the whitepaper it is stated that PLA serves as a static currency for three different distribution partners (valued at $0.01 USD). Has there any transactions completed with actual PLA tokens with these partners? If so, how are these tokens accounted for in the total supply/token allocation?

The ERC20 PLA is not yet generated and has not been used for any transactions. There are an estimated 58 million of the centralised version of the PlayChip in circulation that will be swapped out 1:1 following the generation event. These tokens will come from the operators rewards bucket.

On the company website, it is stated that PlayChip is "experienced, licensed and established". What specific licenses does the company currently possess? Please provide proof.

This has been changed to “our operators are experienced, licensed and established”. The PlayChip Foundation Ltd itself is currently applying to be registered as a digital currency exchange business.

To what extent will blockchain technology be used for the platform (beyond the creation of tokens)? Provide specific details, if possible.

The immediate introduction of the blockchain will provide users with a higher degree of control and access over their funds, being able to transact and withdraw from the ecosystem in real-time.

Future development phases have the provision to introduce the blockchain into our gaming architecture. Specific details on this will be published in the technical white paper.

Tokens allocated to the PlayChip Foundation are said to be used for "seeding economies on new platforms, should they be required". Please elaborate on the meaning of seeding economies on new platforms. What kind of platforms will be developed and what role do these platforms play in the ecosystem?

Seeding economies refers to the loaning of tokens to newly approved partner operators of the PlayChip. This will serve to grow the PlayChip ecosystem, user base and utility value.

We will continue to seek to partner with reliable and compliant operators with healthy turnovers in relevant industries in an effort to grow our ecosystem.

All of the current partnered operators of the PlayChip are highly successful businesses who are licensed and recognised in the regions in which they operate. Each new partner that joins the ecosystem brings with them their existing user base to grow adoption of the PlayChip and gives the token broader utility.  

The use of funds that are allocated to the PlayChip Foundation are dependent on the "approval from multiple parties". Who are the specific parties involved and what mechanisms are in place to determine how funds are spent (voting mechanisms, governance structure, etc.)?

Following generation, these tokens will be placed in escrow for a minimum 12 month period. To be deployed this period will be required to be lapsed and it must be signed off on by each of the three directors.

What is the specific vesting schedule for team members, founders, and advisors, and partners?

none has been discussed thus far, but has not been ruled out either

What features will be implemented with respect to placing bets? What kind of challenges will users be able to participate in?

The Bet Float of 5bn PlayChips will be used to mitigate risk, and will be allocated to our operational partners based on their past turnover, activity and user base.

Local legislature and regulation will determine the specific challenges certain users may or may not enter. Our operational partners will be tasked with making this determination. The user’s KYC details will be available to the operational partner via the PlayWallet.

 

Use this code to share the ratings on your website