Promether

Promether allows anybody to create secure and anonymous networks simply by deploying and configuring a series of reusable software components.

About Promether

Promether is a network that protects the privacy of all participants. Any type of data can be sent across the Promether network. Individuals will be able to use the network for free. Contact is a secure communications platform that will be released alongside Promether for the MVP. PYRO tokens will be used to reward network validators and to pay for services.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.7
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

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.

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Overall, the breadth of the content presented in the whitepaper is fairly extensive. However, more depth should be provided for the content that is discussed. For instance, token economy is sufficiently discussed, but the business development plan is lacking. A broad overview of the technology is presented, but specific details on implementation are lacking (IoT, data storage, etc). Legal considerations are essentially absent. Details of the token sale are also limited.

Readability: Overall, the whitepaper uses fairly simplistic language and is fairly easy to read. Much of the document reads like an emotionally-driven marketing piece, as opposed to a professionally written, informative document.

Transparency: The GitHub page does not contain any publicly available repositories. However, the organization is fairly transparent with regards to challenges that the platform faces. There is a section in the whitepaper that outlines potential difficulties for the platform/organization (security, awareness, development needs). However, these challenges are briefly discussed without providing some sort of strategy as to how the company will address these issues. Overall, the organization is fairly honest and does not deliberately obfuscate the information in the whitepaper. However more information should be provided.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Token economy is discussed in detail. The roles of validators (miners) for the PoS protocol are discussed thoroughly along with the fee structure of the platform (transaction fees, expedited user fees, reserve pool payments). Discussion regarding staking options is also extensive. However, the business development plan is lacking. There is minimal discussion with regards to the revenue model, expansion channels, and marketing strategy. One of the challenges that is discussed in the document is awareness: “it is challenging to persuade people to shift from their current habits of consumption, as most can not visualize the threats that these invisible exploitations have”. Yet, there is little content provided that discusses the plan as to how the organization will market the platform and how the organization intends to overcome the awareness issue.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The whitepaper provides a fairly high-level overview of the various technical aspects of the platform and describes implementation primarily on a logistical level. The use of technologies are simply mentioned (RC6, MARS, Twofsh, Serpent) as opposed to being discussed thoroughly with regards to how the platform will operate as a whole. A detailed schematic is absent from the document, thus the technology presentation reads like a list of desired features as opposed to a description of how the platform will operate.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer. There is a brief (one paragraph) section that addresses the regulatory considerations of the platform and token sale. The written content lacks professionalism: it is stated that the aim of the organization “is to create the most effective system to meet the needs of the public, while being prudent about government power so [they] can remain in business to continue operating and improving [their] deliverables.” The website does not contain further information regarding legal considerations. It is explicitly stated that neither the private sale nor the ICO will be offered to residents of the United States, Canada, or China. The organization is partnered with Sinnott & Company (legal partner).

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.3
Product
Differentiation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
Current Position within Roadmap

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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, innovative use of smart contract functionality or blockchain technology as part of the platform.

Product

Differentiation: Promether differentiates itself from similar competitors by claiming to be a “all-in-one” solution which will be fully configurable and modular. In addition, users will be able to access the platform for free. Promether is intended to act as an application building block by giving developers access to a “next-generation security based open-source API” without the need to be experts in networking and security.

Readiness: The platform has yet to reach any notable milestones. An MVP is expected to be available in Q1 2019. Thus, it is inferred that the project is still primarily an idea.

Concreteness of Development Plans: There is an 18-month roadmap in the whitepaper which spans from Q1 2018 to Q3 2019 and is presented as follows:
Q1 2018 – Project setup & branding, team building, whitepaper, website, initial seed round
Q2 2018 – Private sale, marketing roadshow, social media, ICO, partnership additions
Q3 2018 – Marketing strategy execution, ongoing ecosystem building, contributions/dev incentives
Q4 2018 – API beta release, contact proof-of-concept teaser, contact integration with API
Q1 2019 – Mainnet release, contact MVP release, decentralized VPN network release
Q2 2019 – Ongoing development of Promether platform, Contact, and additional dApps
Q3 2019 – Decentralized file sharing and storage platform alpha with Promether integration

The level of detail provided for most milestones is fairly low. For example, further detail with regards to “ongoing ecosystem building” is not provided. One of the milestones is “marketing strategy execution”, however the details of the strategy are not outlined in the whitepaper, and thus do not align with the business development plan.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is at the early stages of development. There is no indication that the organization has made significant achievements with respect to the development of the platform. As such, it is inferred that the platform is still primarily an idea.

Feasiblity: The project has a fairly large scope, as the platform aims to become an all-in-one solution for private and secure networking. It is odd that the proof-of-concept for ‘contact’ (a messaging application) will take until Q4 2018 for completion. The Mainnet release of the platform a few months after the API beta release seems very ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform will use a new type of network called an Adaptive Symbiotic Network (ASN), which is stated to be based on the principles of Artificial Intelligence and Ubiquitous Computing. The blockchain solution will use a proof-of-stake consensus protocol and it is stated that “the native coin (PYRO) will be created on the blockchain prior to the initial offering”. Users will be able to contribute unused resources (digital storage, bandwidth, etc) to the network.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

3.2
Market
Target User Base

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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.

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)?

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?

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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.

Market

Target User Base: The organization plans to develop Promether and allow access to all individuals and “unlike other decentralized networks, Promether is completely free to use”. The plan is for Promether to become a “global secure networking infrastructure for developers, miners, users, corporations, and governments”. As a result, the target user base for the platform is vast.

Market Penetration Potential: Promether outlines the target markets for the platform: data security, cloud storage, global VPN, cloud computing, instant messaging, cybersecurity, messaging apps, and altcoins. The potential for market penetration is fairly significant. As the concern for privacy increases among the general public, users will search for solutions that will allow them to communicate freely and securely. A solution that is able to combine all the attributes stated above has potential to become a market leader. However, execution of the project will not be trivial and will require a sufficiently thorough development plan, which Promether is lacking.

Direct Competition: Promether briefly compares the platform with established competitors (Microsoft, AWS), as well as blockchain-focused competitors (Ethereum, Siacoin, Substratum, and Maidsafe). All competitors are much further along when compared to Promether. For example, Substratum as a working demonstration of their product and Maidsafe has a variety of tools/software available for download (web browser, web hosting manager, mail tutorial).

Solution Advantage: The organization plans to allow the network to be used for free. Additionally, providing an all-in-one solution provides a greater user experience compared to using a multitude of isolated projects. These two aspects when combined, provide an enticing product. Some advantages that the whitepaper lists when compared to other projects are not clear (secure instant communications), however.

Blockchain Disruption: The level of disruption that blockchain technology brings to networking is undeniable. Blockchain allows for decentralization which circumvents censorship and provides benefits that allows users to have more control of their data and provides more privacy.

Long-Term Vision: Promether aims to “redefine the rules that govern the masses, and build a new paradigm of security on the Internet without authority, trust, centralization, giving up control, or the ever-watchful eye of Big Brother”. With the development of a secure, censorship-free communication platform, as well as a decentralized file sharing and storage service, the organization aims to become a market leader and develop an all-in-one solution for private communication.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.2
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

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

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

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

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: The Promether organization is based in Mountain View, California. Easily accessible information on the organization is limited. It is stated that the company has executed an Initial Seed Round in Q1 2018 (further details are not provided), based on the roadmap. The branding, project setup, and team building initiated in Q1 2018.

Team Assembly and Commitment: At the time of writing this review, there are 8 core team members with the following roles:
– Founder
– Business Manager
– Marketing Manager
– Content Manager
– Community Manager
– Software Engineer
– Hardware Engineer
– Systems Engineer

There are 6 advisors listed with the following roles:
– Strategic Advisor
– Blockchain Advisor
– Legal Advisor
– Technical Advisor
– Hacker Advisor
– IoT Advisor

Most core team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. Thus, the level of commitment to the Promether project is unknown. As outlined in the roadmap, the team is expected to expand throughout Q2 2018. There is a lack of developers when considering the scope of the project.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All but one team member (Community Manager) have their LinkedIn profiles provided on the organization’s website. The individual’s profile can be found via manual search. However, there is very little content provided on the profile. The organization’s LinkedIn page has 5 employees listed. Some team members (Hardware Engineer, Business Manager, Systems Engineer) do not disclose their role with Promether on their LinkedIn profiles.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The founder has experience developing an encrypted communications platform (Demonsaw) and has prior experience working as the lead programmer at Rockstar Games. The business manager is the founder of The Sublime Group (Promether’s business partner). The software engineer does not have extensive professional experience (graduated with a B.Sc. in computer science in 2017).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Overall, there is seemingly a lack of developers when considering the scale of the project. Additionally, there is a lack of developers with blockchain-related experience.

Strategic Partnerships: Two partnerships are listed in the whitepaper: The Sublime Group (business partner) as well as Sinnot & Company (legal partner). The Sublime group claims to have extensive experience in raising capital through digital token sales. The founder of The Sublime Group is the business manager for Promether. Sinnot 7 Company states that their areas of specializations include blockchain regulatory issues.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.5
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized, or centralized components can be justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The value proposition of the token is not effectively discussed and the use cases are not clearly communicated in the whitepaper. It is stated that PYRO is used to pay for services. Additionally, it is stated that PYRO is “simply a digital representation of the total ownership in the network. A person who owns 1% of all the PYRO is really just a 1% owner of the total capacity of the network”. In addition to the lack of clarity, these statements seemingly contradict another statement made in the whitepaper: “PYRO will not represent or provide the holder rights to any assets, revenue, equity, voting or other investment type or security-type rights”. The inherent value of the token is seemingly contrived.

Token Economy: The token economy is discussed fairly thoroughly. Fee structure is outlined (transaction fees, expedited user fees, reserve pool payments) along with the miner (validator) reward system. However more content should be provided for ways in which users can spend PYRO tokens.

System Decentralization (besides token): Users will contribute excess resources (storage, bandwidth, etc) to the network. Governance is unclear, as it is explicitly stated that PYRO “will not represent or provide the holder rights to any assets, revenue, equity, voting or other investment type or security-type rights”. Overall the platform is mostly decentralized.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Fundraising goals are not specified.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not outlined.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

50% – Public offering
15% – Miner rewards
12.5% – Foundation
12.5% – Internal
10% – Private

Vesting periods are not outlined. Any coins not sold at the public offering will be burned. It is stated that the Foundation fund will be used for “community growth, bounties, all-purpose marketing, airdops, user growth, applications funding, contributors incentivization, etc”. Community interest is sufficient.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Overall, the breadth of the content presented in the whitepaper is fairly extensive. However, more depth should be provided for the content that is discussed. For instance, token economy is sufficiently discussed, but the business development plan is lacking. A broad overview of the technology is presented, but specific details on implementation are lacking (IoT, data storage, etc). Legal considerations are essentially absent. Details of the token sale are also limited.

Readability: Overall, the whitepaper uses fairly simplistic language and is fairly easy to read. Much of the document reads like an emotionally-driven marketing piece, as opposed to a professionally written, informative document.

Transparency: The GitHub page does not contain any publicly available repositories. However, the organization is fairly transparent with regards to challenges that the platform faces. There is a section in the whitepaper that outlines potential difficulties for the platform/organization (security, awareness, development needs). However, these challenges are briefly discussed without providing some sort of strategy as to how the company will address these issues. Overall, the organization is fairly honest and does not deliberately obfuscate the information in the whitepaper. However more information should be provided.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Token economy is discussed in detail. The roles of validators (miners) for the PoS protocol are discussed thoroughly along with the fee structure of the platform (transaction fees, expedited user fees, reserve pool payments). Discussion regarding staking options is also extensive. However, the business development plan is lacking. There is minimal discussion with regards to the revenue model, expansion channels, and marketing strategy. One of the challenges that is discussed in the document is awareness: “it is challenging to persuade people to shift from their current habits of consumption, as most can not visualize the threats that these invisible exploitations have”. Yet, there is little content provided that discusses the plan as to how the organization will market the platform and how the organization intends to overcome the awareness issue.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The whitepaper provides a fairly high-level overview of the various technical aspects of the platform and describes implementation primarily on a logistical level. The use of technologies are simply mentioned (RC6, MARS, Twofsh, Serpent) as opposed to being discussed thoroughly with regards to how the platform will operate as a whole. A detailed schematic is absent from the document, thus the technology presentation reads like a list of desired features as opposed to a description of how the platform will operate.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer. There is a brief (one paragraph) section that addresses the regulatory considerations of the platform and token sale. The written content lacks professionalism: it is stated that the aim of the organization “is to create the most effective system to meet the needs of the public, while being prudent about government power so [they] can remain in business to continue operating and improving [their] deliverables.” The website does not contain further information regarding legal considerations. It is explicitly stated that neither the private sale nor the ICO will be offered to residents of the United States, Canada, or China. The organization is partnered with Sinnott & Company (legal partner).

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

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.

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Documentation Score:
2.7

Product

Differentiation: Promether differentiates itself from similar competitors by claiming to be a “all-in-one” solution which will be fully configurable and modular. In addition, users will be able to access the platform for free. Promether is intended to act as an application building block by giving developers access to a “next-generation security based open-source API” without the need to be experts in networking and security.

Readiness: The platform has yet to reach any notable milestones. An MVP is expected to be available in Q1 2019. Thus, it is inferred that the project is still primarily an idea.

Concreteness of Development Plans: There is an 18-month roadmap in the whitepaper which spans from Q1 2018 to Q3 2019 and is presented as follows:
Q1 2018 – Project setup & branding, team building, whitepaper, website, initial seed round
Q2 2018 – Private sale, marketing roadshow, social media, ICO, partnership additions
Q3 2018 – Marketing strategy execution, ongoing ecosystem building, contributions/dev incentives
Q4 2018 – API beta release, contact proof-of-concept teaser, contact integration with API
Q1 2019 – Mainnet release, contact MVP release, decentralized VPN network release
Q2 2019 – Ongoing development of Promether platform, Contact, and additional dApps
Q3 2019 – Decentralized file sharing and storage platform alpha with Promether integration

The level of detail provided for most milestones is fairly low. For example, further detail with regards to “ongoing ecosystem building” is not provided. One of the milestones is “marketing strategy execution”, however the details of the strategy are not outlined in the whitepaper, and thus do not align with the business development plan.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is at the early stages of development. There is no indication that the organization has made significant achievements with respect to the development of the platform. As such, it is inferred that the platform is still primarily an idea.

Feasiblity: The project has a fairly large scope, as the platform aims to become an all-in-one solution for private and secure networking. It is odd that the proof-of-concept for ‘contact’ (a messaging application) will take until Q4 2018 for completion. The Mainnet release of the platform a few months after the API beta release seems very ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform will use a new type of network called an Adaptive Symbiotic Network (ASN), which is stated to be based on the principles of Artificial Intelligence and Ubiquitous Computing. The blockchain solution will use a proof-of-stake consensus protocol and it is stated that “the native coin (PYRO) will be created on the blockchain prior to the initial offering”. Users will be able to contribute unused resources (digital storage, bandwidth, etc) to the network.

 

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
Current Position within Roadmap

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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, innovative use of smart contract functionality or blockchain technology as part of the platform.
Product Score:
2.3

Market

Target User Base: The organization plans to develop Promether and allow access to all individuals and “unlike other decentralized networks, Promether is completely free to use”. The plan is for Promether to become a “global secure networking infrastructure for developers, miners, users, corporations, and governments”. As a result, the target user base for the platform is vast.

Market Penetration Potential: Promether outlines the target markets for the platform: data security, cloud storage, global VPN, cloud computing, instant messaging, cybersecurity, messaging apps, and altcoins. The potential for market penetration is fairly significant. As the concern for privacy increases among the general public, users will search for solutions that will allow them to communicate freely and securely. A solution that is able to combine all the attributes stated above has potential to become a market leader. However, execution of the project will not be trivial and will require a sufficiently thorough development plan, which Promether is lacking.

Direct Competition: Promether briefly compares the platform with established competitors (Microsoft, AWS), as well as blockchain-focused competitors (Ethereum, Siacoin, Substratum, and Maidsafe). All competitors are much further along when compared to Promether. For example, Substratum as a working demonstration of their product and Maidsafe has a variety of tools/software available for download (web browser, web hosting manager, mail tutorial).

Solution Advantage: The organization plans to allow the network to be used for free. Additionally, providing an all-in-one solution provides a greater user experience compared to using a multitude of isolated projects. These two aspects when combined, provide an enticing product. Some advantages that the whitepaper lists when compared to other projects are not clear (secure instant communications), however.

Blockchain Disruption: The level of disruption that blockchain technology brings to networking is undeniable. Blockchain allows for decentralization which circumvents censorship and provides benefits that allows users to have more control of their data and provides more privacy.

Long-Term Vision: Promether aims to “redefine the rules that govern the masses, and build a new paradigm of security on the Internet without authority, trust, centralization, giving up control, or the ever-watchful eye of Big Brother”. With the development of a secure, censorship-free communication platform, as well as a decentralized file sharing and storage service, the organization aims to become a market leader and develop an all-in-one solution for private communication.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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.

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)?

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?

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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.
Market Score:
3.2

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The Promether organization is based in Mountain View, California. Easily accessible information on the organization is limited. It is stated that the company has executed an Initial Seed Round in Q1 2018 (further details are not provided), based on the roadmap. The branding, project setup, and team building initiated in Q1 2018.

Team Assembly and Commitment: At the time of writing this review, there are 8 core team members with the following roles:
– Founder
– Business Manager
– Marketing Manager
– Content Manager
– Community Manager
– Software Engineer
– Hardware Engineer
– Systems Engineer

There are 6 advisors listed with the following roles:
– Strategic Advisor
– Blockchain Advisor
– Legal Advisor
– Technical Advisor
– Hacker Advisor
– IoT Advisor

Most core team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. Thus, the level of commitment to the Promether project is unknown. As outlined in the roadmap, the team is expected to expand throughout Q2 2018. There is a lack of developers when considering the scope of the project.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All but one team member (Community Manager) have their LinkedIn profiles provided on the organization’s website. The individual’s profile can be found via manual search. However, there is very little content provided on the profile. The organization’s LinkedIn page has 5 employees listed. Some team members (Hardware Engineer, Business Manager, Systems Engineer) do not disclose their role with Promether on their LinkedIn profiles.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The founder has experience developing an encrypted communications platform (Demonsaw) and has prior experience working as the lead programmer at Rockstar Games. The business manager is the founder of The Sublime Group (Promether’s business partner). The software engineer does not have extensive professional experience (graduated with a B.Sc. in computer science in 2017).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Overall, there is seemingly a lack of developers when considering the scale of the project. Additionally, there is a lack of developers with blockchain-related experience.

Strategic Partnerships: Two partnerships are listed in the whitepaper: The Sublime Group (business partner) as well as Sinnot & Company (legal partner). The Sublime group claims to have extensive experience in raising capital through digital token sales. The founder of The Sublime Group is the business manager for Promether. Sinnot 7 Company states that their areas of specializations include blockchain regulatory issues.

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

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

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

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

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:
2.2

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The value proposition of the token is not effectively discussed and the use cases are not clearly communicated in the whitepaper. It is stated that PYRO is used to pay for services. Additionally, it is stated that PYRO is “simply a digital representation of the total ownership in the network. A person who owns 1% of all the PYRO is really just a 1% owner of the total capacity of the network”. In addition to the lack of clarity, these statements seemingly contradict another statement made in the whitepaper: “PYRO will not represent or provide the holder rights to any assets, revenue, equity, voting or other investment type or security-type rights”. The inherent value of the token is seemingly contrived.

Token Economy: The token economy is discussed fairly thoroughly. Fee structure is outlined (transaction fees, expedited user fees, reserve pool payments) along with the miner (validator) reward system. However more content should be provided for ways in which users can spend PYRO tokens.

System Decentralization (besides token): Users will contribute excess resources (storage, bandwidth, etc) to the network. Governance is unclear, as it is explicitly stated that PYRO “will not represent or provide the holder rights to any assets, revenue, equity, voting or other investment type or security-type rights”. Overall the platform is mostly decentralized.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Fundraising goals are not specified.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not outlined.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

50% – Public offering
15% – Miner rewards
12.5% – Foundation
12.5% – Internal
10% – Private

Vesting periods are not outlined. Any coins not sold at the public offering will be burned. It is stated that the Foundation fund will be used for “community growth, bounties, all-purpose marketing, airdops, user growth, applications funding, contributors incentivization, etc”. Community interest is sufficient.

 

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized, or centralized components can be justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Token Economics Score:
2.5

Use this code to share the ratings on your website