TillBilly

A blockchain based digital payments network and a point of sale hardware terminal designed for mass adoption in retail - without complexities or price volatility.

About TillBilly

TillBilly is a point-of-sale (POS) hardware terminal where shoppers will be able to make payments and automatically receive digital receipts and loyalty rewards. Merchants will pay less fees and shoppers will be able to use cryptocurrency for everyday purchases. TillBilly aims to eliminate paper receipts while allowing merchants method to a means to easily transition to accepting cryptocurrency as payment by using a plug-and-play terminal.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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

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

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: The problem statement is adequately discussed with market research that is accompanied by relevant statistics. However, attribution is lacking for much of the data that is presented in the whitepaper (citations are not sufficiently presented). The stakeholders of the platform are discussed sufficiently. The technical discussion of the platform lacks detail and the the business model/token model is insufficiently described. The company GitHub page is presented and contains 4 public repositories, one of which is for the prototype of the POS terminal. The team is only presented in the whitepaper. Legal content is available but is somewhat limited in scope.

Readability: The whitepaper is easy to read and does not seem to deliberately mislead the readers.

Transparency: There is a lack of transparency with the technical aspects of the platform and hardware solution. The whitepaper gives a very brief overview of the product.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: A 5-year revenue projection is presented in the whitepaper along with the unit costs for various aspects of the platform (base monthly subscription, transaction processing fee, etc). The revenue streams of the platform at outlined as follows: – Transaction processing fees collected per purchase – Base monthly subscription – Promotions package purchased by merchants – TillBilly Loyalty as a Service – TillBilly BILL Trades – In app purchases The marketing strategy is also outlined (Volume selling to SMBs, Enterprise Retail Chains). Overall the business development is discussed, but the level of detail of the information presented is somewhat low.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The justification for using the Stellar blockchain is briefly discussed. A brief comparison of the confirmation time and transaction fee/time is compared with Ethereum and Bitcoin. Overall, the technical discussion of the hardware solution or the technical infrastructure of the platform is lacking. Specific details are not disclosed and the platform is discussed primarily in layman terms.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a disclaimer and some content regarding legal considerations towards the beginning of the document. It is stated that the whitepaper “has not been subject to independent audit, verification or analysis by any professional legal, accounting, engineering or financial advisers”.

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).

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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: It is stated in the whitepaper that the organization has four patents (provisional) that have been filed with OP Australia and USPTO. TillBilly is developing a plug-and-play POS terminal which merchants allows merchants to easily adopt cryptocurrency as a payment option. The platform will have in-app marketing options and allow shoppers to easily collect loyalty rewards.

Readiness: There is a video demonstration of a working prototype of the terminal available on the company YouTube page. Additionally, the repository for the prototype is available on the company GitHub page.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows: Q1 2018 – MVP Development – Terminal Prototype Q2 2018 – Design For Manufacturing (DFM) Q3 2018 – Token Sale Q4 2018 – Pilot Launch Q1 2019 – First Factory Run Q2 2019 – 5K Terminal rollout – Austrailian market Q3 2019 – 10K Terminal rollout – Expansion into North America Q4 2019 – 50K Terminal rollout The roadmap is fairly vague. Specific technical developmental milestones are lacking. It is uncertain what developments to the prototype need be reached before the final version of the product is ready for manufacturing.

Current Position within Roadmap: A working prototype has been developed and a video demonstration is publicly available. Further development include refining the design and manufacturing the terminals.

Feasiblity: As the prototype is shown to be functional, based on the roadmap, the feasibility of the project seems reasonable considering that the milestones primarily focuses on expanding the rollout of the terminals after manufacturing the units. However. details regarding manufacturing (specific manufacturer, design details, etc. are not described in the whitepaper). The plan to reach the desired rollout capacity is not adequately discussed.

Blockchain Innovation: There is insufficient information presented to adequately assess the technical infrastructure of the product. The platform does not seem to provide innovation with respect to blockchain technology. The solution merely builds a solution on top of the Stellar blockchain.

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?

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...

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.

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?

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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the product/service are merchants and consumers. Merchants will have a means to accept cryptocurrency as payment while users will easily receive loyalty rewards and digital receipts. As such, the potential audience for the platform is fairly large.

Market Penetration Potential: It will be challenging to provide a viable, widely accepted POS solution considering the high number of competitors. Even with a functional prototype, the success of the organization is uncertain.

Direct Competition: There are a number of competitors that aim to provide a blockchain-based POS solution including (but not limited to): – Kinekt Terminals – BitPOS – Crypt2Pos – Coinify – CoinKite – Revel – BitXATM – Paystand – Coin of Sale – XBTerminal

Solution Advantage: The POS terminal is “plug-and-play”, making it simple for merchants to adopt the solution. The platform aims to provide a simple means to obtain a digital receipt. Notable advantages compared to direct competitors are not significant.

Blockchain Disruption: Developing a POS solution which will allow merchants to accept cryptocurrency has clear potential for disruption to credit card providers, due to the vast reduction in merchant fees.

Long-Term Vision: The platform aims increase the adoption of cryptocurrency as a payment option. The project is somewhat limited in scope and does not adequately differentiate itself from its competition. Thus the long-term vision of the organization with respect to its competitors is unclear.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.5
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly 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..."]).

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat 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: TillBilly was founded in October 26, 2017 in Melbourne, Australia. It is uncertain whether the organization has received significant investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 6 team members and 3 advisors is presented in the whitepaper along with their bio descriptions. The structure of the core team is presented as follows: Sarthak Moghe | Founder, CEO Eddie Cejvan | Co Founder, COO Vinny Bhaskar | Engineering Director Aditya Moghe | Engineering Director Lukas Wesemann | Marketing Director Josiah Swaim | Community Manager Each team member show involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles (except the Community Manager). All team members are concurrently involved with a separate organization/project (mostly Get Worm). As such, commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles for team members is only included in the whitepaper. Previous work experience is listed for all team members, but the level of information presented regarding the current roles at the organization (and previous work experiences) are lacking.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Individuals with technical positions on the team have had experience working as a IT Solution Architect (CEO, COO) within the finance sector or software developers (Engineering Directors). The skill set is merely correlated to project requirements. The relevance of the team’s skill set with respect to developing a POS terminal is somewhat lacking.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Most team members have had experience with software development. The are a lack of individuals with expertise in product design. Most roles within the organization pertain to business development. There is also a lack of individuals on the team with blockchain-related development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: Two partnerships are listed in the whitepaper: – Green America/Skip the Slip (digital receipt awareness campaign) – Formilab (hardware and firmware design services) Notable partnerships with organizations with sizable user bases are not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.7
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Token issued for fundraising purposes only. Unclear how or when token will have any kind of real 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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized without due consideration of the broader issue.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
Token Allocation

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The value proposition of the token is not adequately discussed. It is merely stated that BILL tokens are “issued by TillBilly for the sole purpose of its use in exchanging goods and/or services between TillBilly users”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 1 billion BILL The fee structure is outlined: a transaction processing fee of 1% is charged to the merchant. 0.5% is shared with shopper as discount while 0.5% is kept by TillBilly. Devices will be provided to merchants for an estimated monthly fee of $19.95.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that BILL token holders are not provided any ownership rights. The governance structure of the platform is not discussed in the whitepaper.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 11.5 Million XLM​ Hard cap: 115.5 Million XLM The rationality for the raise amounts lacks detail and are loosely defined but seem reasonable given the nature of the project which required large scale hardware manufacturing.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 47% – Network growth 7% – Founders entitlement (vested for 24 months) 33% – Escrow pool 13% – Post ICO obligations Each criteria is accompianied with a short description of how funds will be used. Network growth is outlined as follows: – Procurement of up to 10,000 (ten thousand) TillBilly terminals for Year 1 goal – Hiring of additional technical staff for development of platform – Hiring of sales staff to execute commercial agreements with retailers – Hiring of financial staff for financial analysis and funds management of the escrow and hedge pools. – Commercial and legal requirements for expansion into new geographies – Establishment of “follow the Sun” line of support

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 5% – Private Token Sale 15% – Public Token Sale 10% – Airdrops, Referral and Bounty Campaigns and to Partners, Advisors, Directors and Employees 30% – Maintain supply of BILLS during transactions. Locked for 6 months from Token Sale Start Date with smart contract 40% – Reserved to be distributed quarterly after 1 year to the platform’s active users and to uplift the BILL POOL The future reserve (BILL POOL) is distributed quarterly to the platform’s active users and are calculated using the following criteria: 1. Average account balance in FIAT_Asset (Credit e.g USDC) 2. Average account balance in BILLS 3. Transaction Volume (i.e Total no. of transactions * Avg amount per transaction) The specific formula used is provided in the whitepaper. It is unknown whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is adequately discussed with market research that is accompanied by relevant statistics. However, attribution is lacking for much of the data that is presented in the whitepaper (citations are not sufficiently presented). The stakeholders of the platform are discussed sufficiently. The technical discussion of the platform lacks detail and the the business model/token model is insufficiently described. The company GitHub page is presented and contains 4 public repositories, one of which is for the prototype of the POS terminal. The team is only presented in the whitepaper. Legal content is available but is somewhat limited in scope.

Readability: The whitepaper is easy to read and does not seem to deliberately mislead the readers.

Transparency: There is a lack of transparency with the technical aspects of the platform and hardware solution. The whitepaper gives a very brief overview of the product.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: A 5-year revenue projection is presented in the whitepaper along with the unit costs for various aspects of the platform (base monthly subscription, transaction processing fee, etc). The revenue streams of the platform at outlined as follows: – Transaction processing fees collected per purchase – Base monthly subscription – Promotions package purchased by merchants – TillBilly Loyalty as a Service – TillBilly BILL Trades – In app purchases The marketing strategy is also outlined (Volume selling to SMBs, Enterprise Retail Chains). Overall the business development is discussed, but the level of detail of the information presented is somewhat low.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The justification for using the Stellar blockchain is briefly discussed. A brief comparison of the confirmation time and transaction fee/time is compared with Ethereum and Bitcoin. Overall, the technical discussion of the hardware solution or the technical infrastructure of the platform is lacking. Specific details are not disclosed and the platform is discussed primarily in layman terms.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a disclaimer and some content regarding legal considerations towards the beginning of the document. It is stated that the whitepaper “has not been subject to independent audit, verification or analysis by any professional legal, accounting, engineering or financial advisers”.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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

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

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:
2.3

Product

Differentiation: It is stated in the whitepaper that the organization has four patents (provisional) that have been filed with OP Australia and USPTO. TillBilly is developing a plug-and-play POS terminal which merchants allows merchants to easily adopt cryptocurrency as a payment option. The platform will have in-app marketing options and allow shoppers to easily collect loyalty rewards.

Readiness: There is a video demonstration of a working prototype of the terminal available on the company YouTube page. Additionally, the repository for the prototype is available on the company GitHub page.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows: Q1 2018 – MVP Development – Terminal Prototype Q2 2018 – Design For Manufacturing (DFM) Q3 2018 – Token Sale Q4 2018 – Pilot Launch Q1 2019 – First Factory Run Q2 2019 – 5K Terminal rollout – Austrailian market Q3 2019 – 10K Terminal rollout – Expansion into North America Q4 2019 – 50K Terminal rollout The roadmap is fairly vague. Specific technical developmental milestones are lacking. It is uncertain what developments to the prototype need be reached before the final version of the product is ready for manufacturing.

Current Position within Roadmap: A working prototype has been developed and a video demonstration is publicly available. Further development include refining the design and manufacturing the terminals.

Feasiblity: As the prototype is shown to be functional, based on the roadmap, the feasibility of the project seems reasonable considering that the milestones primarily focuses on expanding the rollout of the terminals after manufacturing the units. However. details regarding manufacturing (specific manufacturer, design details, etc. are not described in the whitepaper). The plan to reach the desired rollout capacity is not adequately discussed.

Blockchain Innovation: There is insufficient information presented to adequately assess the technical infrastructure of the product. The platform does not seem to provide innovation with respect to blockchain technology. The solution merely builds a solution on top of the Stellar blockchain.

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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

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

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

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

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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
2.2

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the product/service are merchants and consumers. Merchants will have a means to accept cryptocurrency as payment while users will easily receive loyalty rewards and digital receipts. As such, the potential audience for the platform is fairly large.

Market Penetration Potential: It will be challenging to provide a viable, widely accepted POS solution considering the high number of competitors. Even with a functional prototype, the success of the organization is uncertain.

Direct Competition: There are a number of competitors that aim to provide a blockchain-based POS solution including (but not limited to): – Kinekt Terminals – BitPOS – Crypt2Pos – Coinify – CoinKite – Revel – BitXATM – Paystand – Coin of Sale – XBTerminal

Solution Advantage: The POS terminal is “plug-and-play”, making it simple for merchants to adopt the solution. The platform aims to provide a simple means to obtain a digital receipt. Notable advantages compared to direct competitors are not significant.

Blockchain Disruption: Developing a POS solution which will allow merchants to accept cryptocurrency has clear potential for disruption to credit card providers, due to the vast reduction in merchant fees.

Long-Term Vision: The platform aims increase the adoption of cryptocurrency as a payment option. The project is somewhat limited in scope and does not adequately differentiate itself from its competition. Thus the long-term vision of the organization with respect to its competitors is unclear.

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...

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.

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?

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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.
Market Score:
2.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: TillBilly was founded in October 26, 2017 in Melbourne, Australia. It is uncertain whether the organization has received significant investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 6 team members and 3 advisors is presented in the whitepaper along with their bio descriptions. The structure of the core team is presented as follows: Sarthak Moghe | Founder, CEO Eddie Cejvan | Co Founder, COO Vinny Bhaskar | Engineering Director Aditya Moghe | Engineering Director Lukas Wesemann | Marketing Director Josiah Swaim | Community Manager Each team member show involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles (except the Community Manager). All team members are concurrently involved with a separate organization/project (mostly Get Worm). As such, commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles for team members is only included in the whitepaper. Previous work experience is listed for all team members, but the level of information presented regarding the current roles at the organization (and previous work experiences) are lacking.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Individuals with technical positions on the team have had experience working as a IT Solution Architect (CEO, COO) within the finance sector or software developers (Engineering Directors). The skill set is merely correlated to project requirements. The relevance of the team’s skill set with respect to developing a POS terminal is somewhat lacking.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Most team members have had experience with software development. The are a lack of individuals with expertise in product design. Most roles within the organization pertain to business development. There is also a lack of individuals on the team with blockchain-related development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: Two partnerships are listed in the whitepaper: – Green America/Skip the Slip (digital receipt awareness campaign) – Formilab (hardware and firmware design services) Notable partnerships with organizations with sizable user bases are not evident.

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly 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..."]).

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat 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:
2.5

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The value proposition of the token is not adequately discussed. It is merely stated that BILL tokens are “issued by TillBilly for the sole purpose of its use in exchanging goods and/or services between TillBilly users”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 1 billion BILL The fee structure is outlined: a transaction processing fee of 1% is charged to the merchant. 0.5% is shared with shopper as discount while 0.5% is kept by TillBilly. Devices will be provided to merchants for an estimated monthly fee of $19.95.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that BILL token holders are not provided any ownership rights. The governance structure of the platform is not discussed in the whitepaper.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 11.5 Million XLM​ Hard cap: 115.5 Million XLM The rationality for the raise amounts lacks detail and are loosely defined but seem reasonable given the nature of the project which required large scale hardware manufacturing.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 47% – Network growth 7% – Founders entitlement (vested for 24 months) 33% – Escrow pool 13% – Post ICO obligations Each criteria is accompianied with a short description of how funds will be used. Network growth is outlined as follows: – Procurement of up to 10,000 (ten thousand) TillBilly terminals for Year 1 goal – Hiring of additional technical staff for development of platform – Hiring of sales staff to execute commercial agreements with retailers – Hiring of financial staff for financial analysis and funds management of the escrow and hedge pools. – Commercial and legal requirements for expansion into new geographies – Establishment of “follow the Sun” line of support

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 5% – Private Token Sale 15% – Public Token Sale 10% – Airdrops, Referral and Bounty Campaigns and to Partners, Advisors, Directors and Employees 30% – Maintain supply of BILLS during transactions. Locked for 6 months from Token Sale Start Date with smart contract 40% – Reserved to be distributed quarterly after 1 year to the platform’s active users and to uplift the BILL POOL The future reserve (BILL POOL) is distributed quarterly to the platform’s active users and are calculated using the following criteria: 1. Average account balance in FIAT_Asset (Credit e.g USDC) 2. Average account balance in BILLS 3. Transaction Volume (i.e Total no. of transactions * Avg amount per transaction) The specific formula used is provided in the whitepaper. It is unknown whether unsold tokens will be burned.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Token issued for fundraising purposes only. Unclear how or when token will have any kind of real 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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized without due consideration of the broader issue.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
Token Allocation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Token Economics Score:
2.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website