Rewards.com

About Rewards.com

Rewards.com aims to allow users to earn RWRD tokens by shopping online or making in-store purchases on a marketplace that current has “over 100,000,000 products and 7,000 merchants”. RWRD tokens also provide users with voting rights.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
Transparency

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: There is a whitepaper as well as a technical document provided through the website. The whitepaper reads like a marketing brochure whereas the technical document contains specific information on the technical aspects of the platform, an evaluation of the current state of the technological landscape, and the economic structure of the platform. The company GitHub page contains minimal content (whitepaper). Team members are presented on the company website and the whitepaper. Legal disclaimers are included towards the end of the document.

Readability: The whitepaper is fairly readable but would could be more concise with the removal of some content such as the section regarding token economics (which is a basic discussion on the principles of supply and demand).

Transparency: The document is fairly transparent with respect to the limitations of using the Ethereum blockchain. There is a specific section in the technical document that discusses the scalability issues of Ethereum, which justifies the use of using an off-chain internal ledger which will be published daily via IPFS. However, the current stage of development is uncertain due to the lack of development roadmap and the lack of content on the company GitHub page.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The technical document contains a very basic assessment of the token economics which outlines the principles of supply and demand. An assessment of whether merchants would prefer to provide rewards to consumers which are locked to particular platforms (such as reward points) is uncertain. In other words, the fact that RWRD tokens can be used with a variety of products/services is clearly beneficial for the consumer, but the impact on merchants is less certain. Some aspects of the business plan, such as the use of proceeds from the token sale, are also absent from the documents and the website.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: It is stated that RWRD tokens (amount earned or deposited) will be tracked using an off-chain internal account ledger and will be published every day via IPFS. Various components of the platform are discussed with moderate detail including the different wallets (earnings wallet, redemption wallet, token distribution wallet), how the data is stored, and what frameworks are being used (Truffle). An evaluation of Ethereum versus other blockchain infrastructures is discussed with low levels of detail. Overall, the information presented in the technical document regarding use of technology is fairly comprehensive.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper and the technical document contain legal disclaimers (the legal content between the two papers is nearly identical) toward the end of the documents. It is stated that the organization plans to implement SAFTs (unavailable for assessment at the time of review).

Documentation Market

Product

1.7
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - No real concrete plans or milestones.
Current Position within Roadmap

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: As a platform that intends to tokenize loyalty rewards programs, the platform does not provide significant features that would differentiate itself from other blockchain-based loyalty reward systems. It’s explicitly stated that the “RWRD application differs most significantly from other blockchain based loyalty platforms in that it adds a token to an existing platform, the Rewards Global Marketplace”. The implementation of tokens to an existing rewards program is not a unique feature of the platform considering that there are other competitors that claim to provide the same benefit (for example, MB8 Coin). However, the maturity and relative size of the existing Rewards.com platform may give it an advantage, as the organization claims that its marketplace has “over 100,000,000 products and 7,000 merchants”.

Readiness: The current state of development is unclear. A development roadmap is not presented and the GitHub contains minimal levels of content and activity.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A development roadmap is not clearly presented on the website, whitepaper, or the technical document.

Current Position within Roadmap: The current state of development is not clear, as the company GitHub contains very low levels of content and activity. Furthermore, the company does not provide a roadmap.

Feasiblity: The feasibility of the project seems favorable considering the that the solution is not particularly complex or innovative.

Blockchain Innovation: The project does not provide significant value outside its ecosystem with respect to blockchain technology.

Product Company and Team

Market

2.0
Market
Target User Base

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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)?

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

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

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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.

Market

Target User Base: In the whitepaper it is stated that Rewards.com plans to introduce RWRD to a marketplace with “over 100,000,000 products and 7,000 merchants, including restaurants, travel, entertainment, and retail”.

Market Penetration Potential: Considering the number of similar platforms and the fact that RWRD tokens do not seem to provide a major advantage compared to other loyalty reward tokens, the potential for market dominance is questionable.

Direct Competition: The technical document outlines potential competitors, including Incent Loyalty and Elements. Other potential competitors (blockchain-based reward programs) include (but are not limited to): – BitRewards – Nexxus – Rakuten – Ovato – EsperanToken – OnePlusOne – LoyalCoin – EZToken – Retainly – MB8 Coin

Solution Advantage: Some aspects of the platform that would differentiate it from some similar projects is the emphasis on community involvement via voting and the relative size of the existing rewards program. Beyond these aspects, the solutions does not seem to have a distinct advantage over most blockchain-based loyalty reward programs.

Blockchain Disruption: It is intended that users will be able to earn RWRD tokens as opposed to cash back or points. When compared to cash back, the information presented in the whitepaper does not adequately discuss the advantages of RWRD tokens compared to cash back loyalty program. As such, the level of disruption to the current landscape of loyalty programs brought forth by the utilization of blockchain technology (as described by the solution) is fairly weak.

Long-Term Vision: The documents contain some vague statements that make it seem as though the organization is capitalizing on the exuberance and excitement revolving around blockchain and cryptocurrency. Additionally, there is no roadmap available, so the long-term plan of the organization is unclear.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.3
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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)?

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?

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

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: Rewards.com states that is has “over 100,000,000 products and 7,000 merchants”. The organization was founded in 2015 in Dallas, Texas and has received $750K in seed funding (DallasStartups.com).

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 10 individuals (and 1 dog) is presented on the website, along with 5 advisors. There are three individuals with a technical role (Full Stack Developer, Blockchain Developer, and Systems Architect). The rest of the core team have positions that align more closely to business development. Strangely, a team member with the job title of “European Operations Manager” via the website is listed simply as an Advisor based on the individual’s LinkedIn page. Nearly all team members are concurrently involved with other projects.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Most team members (all but two individuals) provide a link to their LinkedIn profiles via the company website. Information presented on the LinkedIn profiles of the founders is somewhat lacking. Furthermore, there is no distinction between team members that are focused on the development of the RWRD token as opposed to the normal business operations of Rewards.com.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: With regards to business development, the core team has had prior experience developing Rewards.com and some team members have had notable experience working with organizations such as Universal Pictures, and FOX. However, there is a lack of individuals with blockchain-related development experience.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The core development team does not seem to possess individuals that have had prior experience working with large-scale blockchain-based projects. It seems as though most, if not all team members were sourced from the existing Rewards.com team.

Strategic Partnerships: The following organizations are presented as partnerships on the company website: – DASH – rivetz – Ernerst Hancock – VerifyInvestor.com – IdentiyMind Global – tokentarget – WINGS The level of involvement from each “partnership” is unclear;

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.0
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

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

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

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).

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 quite weak. It is simply inferred that the token value will increase in value due to the stagnant supply and increase in demand as the platform increases in adoption.

Token Economy: It is stated that Rewards members will receive a 25% bonus on all unredeemed points at the time of upgrade to the RWRD token system. The monetary amount of the unredeemed points is uncertain, thus the amount of tokens that will be issued to Rewards members when the platform launches is also uncertain. Token circulation is presented on the website as follows: Month 1 – 230,000,000 Month 3 – 251,000,000 Month 6 – 280,000,000 Month 12 – 371,500,000 Month 24 – 508,000,000 Month 36 – 662,500,000 Month 48 – 786,000,000

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that RWRD token holders will be able to “vote on select proposals presented to the community” which may include “sale of a selected number of tokens to donate to a charitable cause like disaster relief, support for a community events, a new feature or any proposal the community agrees to support”. The voting mechanism is briefly discussed in the technical document (only users with their own wallet with a non-zero token balance are able to participate in the voting session). The platform, for the time being, will use off-chain components to address scalability issued with the Ethereum blockchain.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 3,000 ETH Hard cap: 75,000 ETH The fundraising amount seem arbitrary and fairly greedy. There is minimal content provided that adequately justifies the fundraising goals.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not adequately discussed in the documents or the whitepaper.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the website as follows: 40% – Fundraiser token distribution 3% – Bounties and Referrals 5% – Advisors 16% – Founders and Team Members 20% – Community voting Vesting periods are clearly in the whitepaper as follows: “a 20-month vesting period will be imposed. 60-days after the launch of the US version of the program 5% of the team member tokens will be released each month for 20 months”.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: There is a whitepaper as well as a technical document provided through the website. The whitepaper reads like a marketing brochure whereas the technical document contains specific information on the technical aspects of the platform, an evaluation of the current state of the technological landscape, and the economic structure of the platform. The company GitHub page contains minimal content (whitepaper). Team members are presented on the company website and the whitepaper. Legal disclaimers are included towards the end of the document.

Readability: The whitepaper is fairly readable but would could be more concise with the removal of some content such as the section regarding token economics (which is a basic discussion on the principles of supply and demand).

Transparency: The document is fairly transparent with respect to the limitations of using the Ethereum blockchain. There is a specific section in the technical document that discusses the scalability issues of Ethereum, which justifies the use of using an off-chain internal ledger which will be published daily via IPFS. However, the current stage of development is uncertain due to the lack of development roadmap and the lack of content on the company GitHub page.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The technical document contains a very basic assessment of the token economics which outlines the principles of supply and demand. An assessment of whether merchants would prefer to provide rewards to consumers which are locked to particular platforms (such as reward points) is uncertain. In other words, the fact that RWRD tokens can be used with a variety of products/services is clearly beneficial for the consumer, but the impact on merchants is less certain. Some aspects of the business plan, such as the use of proceeds from the token sale, are also absent from the documents and the website.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: It is stated that RWRD tokens (amount earned or deposited) will be tracked using an off-chain internal account ledger and will be published every day via IPFS. Various components of the platform are discussed with moderate detail including the different wallets (earnings wallet, redemption wallet, token distribution wallet), how the data is stored, and what frameworks are being used (Truffle). An evaluation of Ethereum versus other blockchain infrastructures is discussed with low levels of detail. Overall, the information presented in the technical document regarding use of technology is fairly comprehensive.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper and the technical document contain legal disclaimers (the legal content between the two papers is nearly identical) toward the end of the documents. It is stated that the organization plans to implement SAFTs (unavailable for assessment at the time of review).

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
Transparency

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
3.3

Product

Differentiation: As a platform that intends to tokenize loyalty rewards programs, the platform does not provide significant features that would differentiate itself from other blockchain-based loyalty reward systems. It’s explicitly stated that the “RWRD application differs most significantly from other blockchain based loyalty platforms in that it adds a token to an existing platform, the Rewards Global Marketplace”. The implementation of tokens to an existing rewards program is not a unique feature of the platform considering that there are other competitors that claim to provide the same benefit (for example, MB8 Coin). However, the maturity and relative size of the existing Rewards.com platform may give it an advantage, as the organization claims that its marketplace has “over 100,000,000 products and 7,000 merchants”.

Readiness: The current state of development is unclear. A development roadmap is not presented and the GitHub contains minimal levels of content and activity.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A development roadmap is not clearly presented on the website, whitepaper, or the technical document.

Current Position within Roadmap: The current state of development is not clear, as the company GitHub contains very low levels of content and activity. Furthermore, the company does not provide a roadmap.

Feasiblity: The feasibility of the project seems favorable considering the that the solution is not particularly complex or innovative.

Blockchain Innovation: The project does not provide significant value outside its ecosystem with respect to blockchain technology.

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - No real concrete plans or milestones.
Current Position within Roadmap

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Blockchain Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
1.7

Market

Target User Base: In the whitepaper it is stated that Rewards.com plans to introduce RWRD to a marketplace with “over 100,000,000 products and 7,000 merchants, including restaurants, travel, entertainment, and retail”.

Market Penetration Potential: Considering the number of similar platforms and the fact that RWRD tokens do not seem to provide a major advantage compared to other loyalty reward tokens, the potential for market dominance is questionable.

Direct Competition: The technical document outlines potential competitors, including Incent Loyalty and Elements. Other potential competitors (blockchain-based reward programs) include (but are not limited to): – BitRewards – Nexxus – Rakuten – Ovato – EsperanToken – OnePlusOne – LoyalCoin – EZToken – Retainly – MB8 Coin

Solution Advantage: Some aspects of the platform that would differentiate it from some similar projects is the emphasis on community involvement via voting and the relative size of the existing rewards program. Beyond these aspects, the solutions does not seem to have a distinct advantage over most blockchain-based loyalty reward programs.

Blockchain Disruption: It is intended that users will be able to earn RWRD tokens as opposed to cash back or points. When compared to cash back, the information presented in the whitepaper does not adequately discuss the advantages of RWRD tokens compared to cash back loyalty program. As such, the level of disruption to the current landscape of loyalty programs brought forth by the utilization of blockchain technology (as described by the solution) is fairly weak.

Long-Term Vision: The documents contain some vague statements that make it seem as though the organization is capitalizing on the exuberance and excitement revolving around blockchain and cryptocurrency. Additionally, there is no roadmap available, so the long-term plan of the organization is unclear.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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)?

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

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

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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.
Market Score:
2.0

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Rewards.com states that is has “over 100,000,000 products and 7,000 merchants”. The organization was founded in 2015 in Dallas, Texas and has received $750K in seed funding (DallasStartups.com).

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 10 individuals (and 1 dog) is presented on the website, along with 5 advisors. There are three individuals with a technical role (Full Stack Developer, Blockchain Developer, and Systems Architect). The rest of the core team have positions that align more closely to business development. Strangely, a team member with the job title of “European Operations Manager” via the website is listed simply as an Advisor based on the individual’s LinkedIn page. Nearly all team members are concurrently involved with other projects.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Most team members (all but two individuals) provide a link to their LinkedIn profiles via the company website. Information presented on the LinkedIn profiles of the founders is somewhat lacking. Furthermore, there is no distinction between team members that are focused on the development of the RWRD token as opposed to the normal business operations of Rewards.com.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: With regards to business development, the core team has had prior experience developing Rewards.com and some team members have had notable experience working with organizations such as Universal Pictures, and FOX. However, there is a lack of individuals with blockchain-related development experience.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The core development team does not seem to possess individuals that have had prior experience working with large-scale blockchain-based projects. It seems as though most, if not all team members were sourced from the existing Rewards.com team.

Strategic Partnerships: The following organizations are presented as partnerships on the company website: – DASH – rivetz – Ernerst Hancock – VerifyInvestor.com – IdentiyMind Global – tokentarget – WINGS The level of involvement from each “partnership” is unclear;

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)?

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?

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

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:
2.3

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The value proposition of the token is quite weak. It is simply inferred that the token value will increase in value due to the stagnant supply and increase in demand as the platform increases in adoption.

Token Economy: It is stated that Rewards members will receive a 25% bonus on all unredeemed points at the time of upgrade to the RWRD token system. The monetary amount of the unredeemed points is uncertain, thus the amount of tokens that will be issued to Rewards members when the platform launches is also uncertain. Token circulation is presented on the website as follows: Month 1 – 230,000,000 Month 3 – 251,000,000 Month 6 – 280,000,000 Month 12 – 371,500,000 Month 24 – 508,000,000 Month 36 – 662,500,000 Month 48 – 786,000,000

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that RWRD token holders will be able to “vote on select proposals presented to the community” which may include “sale of a selected number of tokens to donate to a charitable cause like disaster relief, support for a community events, a new feature or any proposal the community agrees to support”. The voting mechanism is briefly discussed in the technical document (only users with their own wallet with a non-zero token balance are able to participate in the voting session). The platform, for the time being, will use off-chain components to address scalability issued with the Ethereum blockchain.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 3,000 ETH Hard cap: 75,000 ETH The fundraising amount seem arbitrary and fairly greedy. There is minimal content provided that adequately justifies the fundraising goals.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not adequately discussed in the documents or the whitepaper.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the website as follows: 40% – Fundraiser token distribution 3% – Bounties and Referrals 5% – Advisors 16% – Founders and Team Members 20% – Community voting Vesting periods are clearly in the whitepaper as follows: “a 20-month vesting period will be imposed. 60-days after the launch of the US version of the program 5% of the team member tokens will be released each month for 20 months”.

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).

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:
2.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website