Social Send

Aims to allow the transfer of money through social networks to friends and family around the world.

About Social Send

Send aims to address the current issue of volatility that affects most cryptocurrencies. The price is intended to be stabilized on a week-by-week basis by defining the price of SDT after each Consensus Period and using the cross-border transaction volume and network liquidity. The value of the token can be projected as opposed to being speculated via the transparent liquidity formula. The platform will use a peer-to-peer network, WeSend, to trade between fiat and cryptocurrencies. Applications within the ecosystem will use the reference price of SDT.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.7
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very difficult to understand.
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Business and token models are well-developed and clearly presented.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: There are three documents presented on the Send website: the whitepaper, a one-pager, and a document outlining the token economics of the platform. The consensus price formulas are clearly presented in the whitepaper. The company GitHub page is included with a single repository for the token smart contracts. The documents primarily focus on discussing the (token) mechanics of the platform. Team members are presented on the company website, with most individuals providing links to their LinkedIn profiles and descriptions of prior work experience.

Readability: The whitepaper takes time to read as it contains a fair amount of technical content and the document is somewhat complex, although the whitepaper overall is fairly short.

Transparency: The organization’s GitHub page is publicly available. However, a thorough discussion of the current stage of development is not included. The formulas which will be used to attempt stabilize the token is presented adequately in the whitepaper. The whitepaper does not seem to misinform the reader, but a more thorough assessment of how the formulas were derived would be beneficial.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The token mechanics (price stabilization) is discussed with high levels of detail. Formulas and a description of how the token economy works is described thoroughly. A brief discussion on the marketing plan is discussed: the organization will heavily promote SDT and WeSend in Venezuela (the method of promotion is not adequately discussed). A brief assessment of the Venezuelan economy is provided.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical aspects of the platform (infrastructure, marketplace, etc) are not discussed as thoroughly as the token mechanics of the platform. The whitepaper seems quite theoretical as opposed to providing concrete information on how the company plans to implement their plan and develop the technology.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a lack of legal content provided in the documents and the company website. Terms and legal disclaimers and other legal content provided on the company website pertains to the the use of the website as opposed to the token/platform/token sale.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.2
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).

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)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.

Product

Differentiation: It is explicitly stated in the FAQ section of the company website that SDT differs from other stable coins by using a transparent liquidity formula. Additionally, the token will be supported by a “network of intuitive applications that fulfill various uses such as cross-border exchange, store of value and online payments”.

Readiness: A repository for the token contracts is publicly availailable on the company GitHub page. An audit for the ICO smart contract can be found here: https://blog.coinfabrik.com/security-audit-send-sdt-token-sale-ico-smart-contract/. The current stage of development is not adequately discussed.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The development plans are presented as follows:

Q4 2017
– Initial investment round
– Token development
Q2 2018
– Token launch
– Send API
Q3 2018
– Consensus Network launch
– 100K USD (accumulated)
– Initial price formation
– Send wallet
– 50M USD (accumulated)
2019
– Send Protocol (Blockchain)
– Send wallet 2.0
– Coin migration

Overall technical milestones are presented. However some business-related milestones (for example the marketing plan in Venezuela) are not included in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is still at the early stages of development. With regards to the roadmap, the most notable milestone achieved by the organization is the development of the token contracts. There are critical obstacles still to be completed, much of which is planned for Q3 2018.

Feasiblity: At the time of this review (May 2018), the organization is working on the development of the token. The level of development with regards to the Send API is unknown (not available on GitHub). Additionally, the growth in network accumulation from $100K USD to $50MM USD in the same quarter (Q3) seems very ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not necessarily provide value with regards to blockchain technology, but rather an implementation of techniques in an attempt to reduce the volatility of the token. As such, the level of blockchain innovation (as described by the platform) is fairly low.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

2.5
Market
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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...

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

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

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)?

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

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

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

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

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

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are those that use cryptocurrency as a general means of exchange for goods and services (a subset of the cryptocurrency market). As a result, the demographic has the potential to grow (assuming that the platform is widely adopted) as the rate of adoption of blockchain/cryptocurrency grows.

Market Penetration Potential: There is a need for cryptocurrencies to become stable, but there are a number of projects that are developing techniques and strategies to tackle this issue. Additionally, cryptocurrency is still in its infancy and as a result, the project will have to compete not only with existing projects, but many future projects to come. Market penetration will be somewhat difficult.

Direct Competition: There a are a number of competitors that aim to develop a cryptocurrency which provides price stability, including (but not limited to):

– USDX
– Havven
– TrueUSD
– Dai token

Solution Advantage: The platform differs from similar projects by reducing the volatility of SDT by using a transparent liquidity formula. It is stated that “As the availability, liquidity, and services around the digital asset grow, the transactional volume will increase, causing the value increase of this digital asset to be effectively sustained by the community around the Consensus Network”. The Consensus Network are parties that are willing to use SDT as a means of exchange while accepting to use the consensus price as the minimum price. This approach is fairly unique but the feasibility and implementation is uncertain.

Blockchain Disruption: As a means of exchange, the introduction of blockchain technology to allow users to transact using digital currencies is evident. SDT provides a means in which users will be able to transact using a token that is designed to maintain relatively stable prices compared to most tokens. The organization plans to do this is a manner in which the value of the tokens can be predicted based on formulas as opposed to being speculated on.

Long-Term Vision: It is stated that in the long term, the organizations aims for SDT to become a globally-recognized ” store of value, as a medium of exchange, and as a unit of account”. With respect to the roadmap, the organization aims to develop their own blockchain. The platform must first compete with other coins that aim to reduce volatility before expanding and gaining higher levels of adoption.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.0
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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..."]).

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

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

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
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: Send is a privately held organization founded in 2017 in Grand Cayman. It is unclear if the organization has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 12 core team members presented on the company website, along with 4 advisors. There are 3 co-founders, each disclosing their affiliation with the organization on their LinkedIn profiles, and also include a fairly thorough discussion of their roles and responsibilities at Send (and WeSend). There are four full-stack engineers on the team, two of which provide links to their GitHub pages which show moderate activity. The other two full-stack engineers have links that lead to the same GitLab profile, showing no activity.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: The founders provide sufficient information with regards to prior work experience also include links to relevant media articles. Information provided for other team members vary considerably. Individuals with a background in business development seem to provide more information on their LinkedIn profiles when compare to those with a technical background (although GitHub profiles are included for some team members).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: [One of the co-founders has experience working as a researcher and development engineer for blockchain systems (Instabuyback LLC), as well as a software architect for a cryptocurrency kiosk system (InstaKiosks). The other co-founder has experience being the founding president of Instabuyback LLC. The full-stack engineers disclose their prior work experience, but the level of information provided is fairly low and notable companies were found.]

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There seems to be a good balance between the team skill set with regards to technical and business development. There are four full-stack engineers on the team, along with a co-founder with prior experience working on blockchain-related projects.

Strategic Partnerships: The following organizations are listed as partners of the platform

– WeSend
– Puntored
– Cryptobuyer
– ePayco

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.2
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Tokens have tangible, inherent, utility-based, functional value.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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: SDK are ERC20 compliant tokens and are used as a means of exchange via the WeSend marketplace and applications within the Send ecosystem. The most notable aspect of the token which provides value is the transparent liquidity formula. Additionally token holders are given voting rights for ” relevant decisions for the Send Foundation and other community supported organizations”. The tokens are fundamental to the goals of the platform.

Token Economy: The liquidity of the token will be controlled via a transparent liquidity formula, which is presented clearly in the whitepaper. The Consensus Network is comprised of individuals and organizations that have agreed to use the Consensus Price as the minimum value for SDT. Consensus Price is derived from a formula which incorporates transaction volume and circulating supply.

System Decentralization (besides token): A voting mechanism is briefly discussed in the whitepaper, but the level of detail provided is inadequate. It is stated that the voting system will “empower token holders in relevant decisions for the Send Foundation and other community supported organizations”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Raise amounts are not clearly outlined.

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

40% – R&D and software development
25% – Ecosystem development
10% – Reserve
10% – Partnership and marketing
10% – Operations
5% – Legal

Further discussion as to the costs associated for each criteria of the funding allocation is not provided.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented as follows:

33% – Crowdsale
25% – Foundation
24% – Corporation
10% – Rewards pool
7% – Team and advisors
1% – Transaction cost

Unsold tokens will be burned. Vesting periods are clearly outlined in the whitepaper.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: There are three documents presented on the Send website: the whitepaper, a one-pager, and a document outlining the token economics of the platform. The consensus price formulas are clearly presented in the whitepaper. The company GitHub page is included with a single repository for the token smart contracts. The documents primarily focus on discussing the (token) mechanics of the platform. Team members are presented on the company website, with most individuals providing links to their LinkedIn profiles and descriptions of prior work experience.

Readability: The whitepaper takes time to read as it contains a fair amount of technical content and the document is somewhat complex, although the whitepaper overall is fairly short.

Transparency: The organization’s GitHub page is publicly available. However, a thorough discussion of the current stage of development is not included. The formulas which will be used to attempt stabilize the token is presented adequately in the whitepaper. The whitepaper does not seem to misinform the reader, but a more thorough assessment of how the formulas were derived would be beneficial.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The token mechanics (price stabilization) is discussed with high levels of detail. Formulas and a description of how the token economy works is described thoroughly. A brief discussion on the marketing plan is discussed: the organization will heavily promote SDT and WeSend in Venezuela (the method of promotion is not adequately discussed). A brief assessment of the Venezuelan economy is provided.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical aspects of the platform (infrastructure, marketplace, etc) are not discussed as thoroughly as the token mechanics of the platform. The whitepaper seems quite theoretical as opposed to providing concrete information on how the company plans to implement their plan and develop the technology.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a lack of legal content provided in the documents and the company website. Terms and legal disclaimers and other legal content provided on the company website pertains to the the use of the website as opposed to the token/platform/token sale.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very difficult to understand.
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Business and token models are well-developed and clearly presented.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.7

Product

Differentiation: It is explicitly stated in the FAQ section of the company website that SDT differs from other stable coins by using a transparent liquidity formula. Additionally, the token will be supported by a “network of intuitive applications that fulfill various uses such as cross-border exchange, store of value and online payments”.

Readiness: A repository for the token contracts is publicly availailable on the company GitHub page. An audit for the ICO smart contract can be found here: https://blog.coinfabrik.com/security-audit-send-sdt-token-sale-ico-smart-contract/. The current stage of development is not adequately discussed.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The development plans are presented as follows:

Q4 2017
– Initial investment round
– Token development
Q2 2018
– Token launch
– Send API
Q3 2018
– Consensus Network launch
– 100K USD (accumulated)
– Initial price formation
– Send wallet
– 50M USD (accumulated)
2019
– Send Protocol (Blockchain)
– Send wallet 2.0
– Coin migration

Overall technical milestones are presented. However some business-related milestones (for example the marketing plan in Venezuela) are not included in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is still at the early stages of development. With regards to the roadmap, the most notable milestone achieved by the organization is the development of the token contracts. There are critical obstacles still to be completed, much of which is planned for Q3 2018.

Feasiblity: At the time of this review (May 2018), the organization is working on the development of the token. The level of development with regards to the Send API is unknown (not available on GitHub). Additionally, the growth in network accumulation from $100K USD to $50MM USD in the same quarter (Q3) seems very ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not necessarily provide value with regards to blockchain technology, but rather an implementation of techniques in an attempt to reduce the volatility of the token. As such, the level of blockchain innovation (as described by the platform) is fairly low.

 

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).

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)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.2

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are those that use cryptocurrency as a general means of exchange for goods and services (a subset of the cryptocurrency market). As a result, the demographic has the potential to grow (assuming that the platform is widely adopted) as the rate of adoption of blockchain/cryptocurrency grows.

Market Penetration Potential: There is a need for cryptocurrencies to become stable, but there are a number of projects that are developing techniques and strategies to tackle this issue. Additionally, cryptocurrency is still in its infancy and as a result, the project will have to compete not only with existing projects, but many future projects to come. Market penetration will be somewhat difficult.

Direct Competition: There a are a number of competitors that aim to develop a cryptocurrency which provides price stability, including (but not limited to):

– USDX
– Havven
– TrueUSD
– Dai token

Solution Advantage: The platform differs from similar projects by reducing the volatility of SDT by using a transparent liquidity formula. It is stated that “As the availability, liquidity, and services around the digital asset grow, the transactional volume will increase, causing the value increase of this digital asset to be effectively sustained by the community around the Consensus Network”. The Consensus Network are parties that are willing to use SDT as a means of exchange while accepting to use the consensus price as the minimum price. This approach is fairly unique but the feasibility and implementation is uncertain.

Blockchain Disruption: As a means of exchange, the introduction of blockchain technology to allow users to transact using digital currencies is evident. SDT provides a means in which users will be able to transact using a token that is designed to maintain relatively stable prices compared to most tokens. The organization plans to do this is a manner in which the value of the tokens can be predicted based on formulas as opposed to being speculated on.

Long-Term Vision: It is stated that in the long term, the organizations aims for SDT to become a globally-recognized ” store of value, as a medium of exchange, and as a unit of account”. With respect to the roadmap, the organization aims to develop their own blockchain. The platform must first compete with other coins that aim to reduce volatility before expanding and gaining higher levels of adoption.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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...

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

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

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)?

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
2.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Send is a privately held organization founded in 2017 in Grand Cayman. It is unclear if the organization has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 12 core team members presented on the company website, along with 4 advisors. There are 3 co-founders, each disclosing their affiliation with the organization on their LinkedIn profiles, and also include a fairly thorough discussion of their roles and responsibilities at Send (and WeSend). There are four full-stack engineers on the team, two of which provide links to their GitHub pages which show moderate activity. The other two full-stack engineers have links that lead to the same GitLab profile, showing no activity.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: The founders provide sufficient information with regards to prior work experience also include links to relevant media articles. Information provided for other team members vary considerably. Individuals with a background in business development seem to provide more information on their LinkedIn profiles when compare to those with a technical background (although GitHub profiles are included for some team members).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: [One of the co-founders has experience working as a researcher and development engineer for blockchain systems (Instabuyback LLC), as well as a software architect for a cryptocurrency kiosk system (InstaKiosks). The other co-founder has experience being the founding president of Instabuyback LLC. The full-stack engineers disclose their prior work experience, but the level of information provided is fairly low and notable companies were found.]

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There seems to be a good balance between the team skill set with regards to technical and business development. There are four full-stack engineers on the team, along with a co-founder with prior experience working on blockchain-related projects.

Strategic Partnerships: The following organizations are listed as partners of the platform

– WeSend
– Puntored
– Cryptobuyer
– ePayco

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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..."]).

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

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

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.

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: SDK are ERC20 compliant tokens and are used as a means of exchange via the WeSend marketplace and applications within the Send ecosystem. The most notable aspect of the token which provides value is the transparent liquidity formula. Additionally token holders are given voting rights for ” relevant decisions for the Send Foundation and other community supported organizations”. The tokens are fundamental to the goals of the platform.

Token Economy: The liquidity of the token will be controlled via a transparent liquidity formula, which is presented clearly in the whitepaper. The Consensus Network is comprised of individuals and organizations that have agreed to use the Consensus Price as the minimum value for SDT. Consensus Price is derived from a formula which incorporates transaction volume and circulating supply.

System Decentralization (besides token): A voting mechanism is briefly discussed in the whitepaper, but the level of detail provided is inadequate. It is stated that the voting system will “empower token holders in relevant decisions for the Send Foundation and other community supported organizations”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Raise amounts are not clearly outlined.

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

40% – R&D and software development
25% – Ecosystem development
10% – Reserve
10% – Partnership and marketing
10% – Operations
5% – Legal

Further discussion as to the costs associated for each criteria of the funding allocation is not provided.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented as follows:

33% – Crowdsale
25% – Foundation
24% – Corporation
10% – Rewards pool
7% – Team and advisors
1% – Transaction cost

Unsold tokens will be burned. Vesting periods are clearly outlined in the whitepaper.

 

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Tokens have tangible, inherent, utility-based, functional value.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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:
3.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website