The Elephant

The Elephant Platform (formerly PrivatEquity.biz Platform) is a tokenized platform in the private secondary market.

About The Elephant

The Elephant platform (previously known as PrivatEquity.biz) aims to be a tokenized platform for the private secondary market. Elephant aims to be a bridge between the secondary market investment world and the blockchain space that allows cyrptocurrency holder to diversify their portfolio by getting access to tokens linked to and backed by real assets, such as shares of pre-IPO companies (Target Companies). At the same time, the Elephant platfrom enables private share owners and investors to unlock the value of these assets by creating and selling their equity tokens. The platform enhances the liquidty and transparency of assets, as well as minimizes transactions costs.
Competitors: LAToken, FundCoin, Blocksmatter, Securitize, tZero, Polymath, Airexe
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: A tokenized security platform directly aimed to service the private equity secondary market.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.7
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

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.

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper is very well put together – professional and aesthetic – and explains the project’s visions/plans at at a high level of technical detail. The documents outline the company’s Executive summary, Background, PrivatEquity.biz Token Generation Event, Definitions, Token Model, The Elephant TGE, Exchange Listings and the Liquidity Reserve, Use of Proceeds, Token issuance, PEC Token Risk Factors, Marketing Plan, Roadmap, Team, Platform Governance & Organizational Structure, and a Summary.

Readability: Very readable as the document is logically organized, uses average language, and provides a balanced mixture of textual and graphical explanation.

Transparency: There is basic honesty with some hype around the potential capabilities of the technology behind the project. There is no publicly accesible githup repo for the project

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The Token Model mission is to create expansion in liquidity to shareholders (mainly small shareholders) that have nil or very limited liquidity available to them. Tokenization of previously illiquid assets may increase their market value by 10% – 40% as illiquidy cost vanish. Also to allow the opening of the investment space for additional classes of potential investors, including the cryptocommunity in addition to all Accredited/Qualifed investors, with low entrance thresholds enabling each investor to create his own “pre-IPO fund” while investing as low as $100.000 in aggregate.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The goals and abilities of the technology and use of blockchain technology are fully explained however, the intricate details of how the technology works are sparsely covered.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The PEC Token Risk Factor section of the whitepaper is very thorough and covers many aspects from taxes, to mining attacks to potential underlying factors of the ethereum protocol.
There is a registration process for both accredited and unaccredited investors, which requires KYC verfying identification with document upload.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.7
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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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: A tokenized security offerings platform directly aimed to service the private equity secondary market.

Readiness: There is an existing legacy platform that is fully operational, however it is not tied to a blockchain and does not currently use a tokenized structure. There is currently no published code or publicly accessible github repo available for the project

Concreteness of Development Plans: A very basic roadmap is given on a quarterly basis. Critical obstacles do lie ahead, such as implementation of the blockchain technology onto the existing legacy platform.
* Q2 2018 – The Elephant TGE / Negotiation of share purchase transactions and offering to PEC holders
* Q3 2018 – Closing of Initial Tokenized LPs
* Q4 2018 – Securing shares listed on Platform over $150 million / Listed of PEC on digital exhcanges
* Q1 2019 – Application for License for an Exchane for security tokens open to Accredited Investors
* Q2 2019 – Inclusion of primary transactions and buy-back programs – share offered by or through the companies themselves

Current Position within Roadmap: The current position is the TGE and the negotiation of share purchase transactions and offering to PEC holders

Feasiblity: The development plans and long term goals of the project are lofty, yet obtainable. The time frame of release for a quality product that aligns with the vision seems realistic given the existence of the legacy platform..

Blockchain Innovation: There is limited blockchain innovation. The key difference between to the vast majority of blockchain projects is that the Elephant platform involes tokenized security assets, however this is started to become a very trendy application of blockchain technology as of 2018.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

3.3
Market
Target User Base

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
Direct Competition

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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 potential / target user-base is large, as The Elephant aims to be a private equity investment platform which is a market with substantial capital.

Market Penetration Potential: It will be very difficult to fully penetrate the private equity marketplace even with riding the cryptocurrency tech advancement, but the platform would realistically be able to capture at least a small spot in the market.

Direct Competition: There are many direct competitiors, in the blockchain space and in the private equity space. Some projects have have successful ICOs and have a large community following.

Solution Advantage: If the project can achieve its vision there is a distinct advantage in speed, cost, and liquidity to currently available legacy solutions, such as it’s own original platform.

Blockchain Disruption: Given the substantial amount of capital in the private equities secondary market place there is potential for disruption of such a market with the platform incorporation of blockchain technology.

Long-Term Vision: Long term goals of the project is to develop a another source of liquidity and diversification for invesments and private equities.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.7
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Sufficently assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Strategic Partnerships

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

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

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The Elephant has a working product (non-blockchain) and an established team with 5 employees and 2 advisors and has on-going private pre-sale ICO.

Team Assembly and Commitment: According to verifiable information available, all members of the team are fully dedicated to the project. There is some lack in blockchain-related expertise.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: The core team has experience in investments, bio-tech, law, business, finance, tech, programming, and blockchain development/architecture.
The advisors have backgrounds in software engineering, tech development, capital managment, blockchain projects. One advisor is Eyal Herzog, co-founder of Bancor.
Team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: A couple of core team members and advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The Elephant’s team is well-balanced. Blockchain development skills can be improved, but the product itself is more business faced.

Strategic Partnerships: Partnered with the ZIRRA and Bancor projects.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.0
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The PEC allows a holder to invest in securities on the Elephant platform, pay less fees for transactions, and recieve dividends for holding the PEC token.

Token Economy: The Platform Operator, the company itself, has the majority share of the token economy which gives it the possibility to control the token economy. The project claims these tokens will be dedicated for purchase of further private stocks to extend the platform’s offering.

System Decentralization (besides token): The Elephant will be expanding upon its existing centralized platform such to use blockchain technology to provide a transparent and secure tokenized asset platform.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): N/A

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): 30% Marketing & PR
14% Technological Development of Platform
12% Legal & Accounting
10% Bounty and Bonus to Team
10% G&A
10% Platform Expansion to additional Fields of Activity
08% HR
03% Analysis Report
03% TGE Expenses

Token Allocation: Total Supply: 120,000,000 PEC

30% ICO
10% Team (24-month vesting with quarterly installments)
15% Partners, Professional Fees, and Accredited Investors Recruitment Program
45% Platform Operator (for future strategic plans for the Platform, and as a reserve for future development of the platform)

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper is very well put together – professional and aesthetic – and explains the project’s visions/plans at at a high level of technical detail. The documents outline the company’s Executive summary, Background, PrivatEquity.biz Token Generation Event, Definitions, Token Model, The Elephant TGE, Exchange Listings and the Liquidity Reserve, Use of Proceeds, Token issuance, PEC Token Risk Factors, Marketing Plan, Roadmap, Team, Platform Governance & Organizational Structure, and a Summary.

Readability: Very readable as the document is logically organized, uses average language, and provides a balanced mixture of textual and graphical explanation.

Transparency: There is basic honesty with some hype around the potential capabilities of the technology behind the project. There is no publicly accesible githup repo for the project

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The Token Model mission is to create expansion in liquidity to shareholders (mainly small shareholders) that have nil or very limited liquidity available to them. Tokenization of previously illiquid assets may increase their market value by 10% – 40% as illiquidy cost vanish. Also to allow the opening of the investment space for additional classes of potential investors, including the cryptocommunity in addition to all Accredited/Qualifed investors, with low entrance thresholds enabling each investor to create his own “pre-IPO fund” while investing as low as $100.000 in aggregate.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The goals and abilities of the technology and use of blockchain technology are fully explained however, the intricate details of how the technology works are sparsely covered.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The PEC Token Risk Factor section of the whitepaper is very thorough and covers many aspects from taxes, to mining attacks to potential underlying factors of the ethereum protocol.
There is a registration process for both accredited and unaccredited investors, which requires KYC verfying identification with document upload.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

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.

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.
Documentation Score:
3.7

Product

Differentiation: A tokenized security offerings platform directly aimed to service the private equity secondary market.

Readiness: There is an existing legacy platform that is fully operational, however it is not tied to a blockchain and does not currently use a tokenized structure. There is currently no published code or publicly accessible github repo available for the project

Concreteness of Development Plans: A very basic roadmap is given on a quarterly basis. Critical obstacles do lie ahead, such as implementation of the blockchain technology onto the existing legacy platform.
* Q2 2018 – The Elephant TGE / Negotiation of share purchase transactions and offering to PEC holders
* Q3 2018 – Closing of Initial Tokenized LPs
* Q4 2018 – Securing shares listed on Platform over $150 million / Listed of PEC on digital exhcanges
* Q1 2019 – Application for License for an Exchane for security tokens open to Accredited Investors
* Q2 2019 – Inclusion of primary transactions and buy-back programs – share offered by or through the companies themselves

Current Position within Roadmap: The current position is the TGE and the negotiation of share purchase transactions and offering to PEC holders

Feasiblity: The development plans and long term goals of the project are lofty, yet obtainable. The time frame of release for a quality product that aligns with the vision seems realistic given the existence of the legacy platform..

Blockchain Innovation: There is limited blockchain innovation. The key difference between to the vast majority of blockchain projects is that the Elephant platform involes tokenized security assets, however this is started to become a very trendy application of blockchain technology as of 2018.

 

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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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:
2.7

Market

Target User Base: The potential / target user-base is large, as The Elephant aims to be a private equity investment platform which is a market with substantial capital.

Market Penetration Potential: It will be very difficult to fully penetrate the private equity marketplace even with riding the cryptocurrency tech advancement, but the platform would realistically be able to capture at least a small spot in the market.

Direct Competition: There are many direct competitiors, in the blockchain space and in the private equity space. Some projects have have successful ICOs and have a large community following.

Solution Advantage: If the project can achieve its vision there is a distinct advantage in speed, cost, and liquidity to currently available legacy solutions, such as it’s own original platform.

Blockchain Disruption: Given the substantial amount of capital in the private equities secondary market place there is potential for disruption of such a market with the platform incorporation of blockchain technology.

Long-Term Vision: Long term goals of the project is to develop a another source of liquidity and diversification for invesments and private equities.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
Direct Competition

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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:
3.3

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The Elephant has a working product (non-blockchain) and an established team with 5 employees and 2 advisors and has on-going private pre-sale ICO.

Team Assembly and Commitment: According to verifiable information available, all members of the team are fully dedicated to the project. There is some lack in blockchain-related expertise.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: The core team has experience in investments, bio-tech, law, business, finance, tech, programming, and blockchain development/architecture.
The advisors have backgrounds in software engineering, tech development, capital managment, blockchain projects. One advisor is Eyal Herzog, co-founder of Bancor.
Team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: A couple of core team members and advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The Elephant’s team is well-balanced. Blockchain development skills can be improved, but the product itself is more business faced.

Strategic Partnerships: Partnered with the ZIRRA and Bancor projects.

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Sufficently assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Strategic Partnerships

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The PEC allows a holder to invest in securities on the Elephant platform, pay less fees for transactions, and recieve dividends for holding the PEC token.

Token Economy: The Platform Operator, the company itself, has the majority share of the token economy which gives it the possibility to control the token economy. The project claims these tokens will be dedicated for purchase of further private stocks to extend the platform’s offering.

System Decentralization (besides token): The Elephant will be expanding upon its existing centralized platform such to use blockchain technology to provide a transparent and secure tokenized asset platform.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): N/A

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): 30% Marketing & PR
14% Technological Development of Platform
12% Legal & Accounting
10% Bounty and Bonus to Team
10% G&A
10% Platform Expansion to additional Fields of Activity
08% HR
03% Analysis Report
03% TGE Expenses

Token Allocation: Total Supply: 120,000,000 PEC

30% ICO
10% Team (24-month vesting with quarterly installments)
15% Partners, Professional Fees, and Accredited Investors Recruitment Program
45% Platform Operator (for future strategic plans for the Platform, and as a reserve for future development of the platform)

 

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website