TraXion

Traxion aims to be a better bank in a blockchain-driven environment, enabling its community to load, send, save, spend, lend, borrow, and more using a secure, simplified yet compliant application.

About TraXion

TraXion is an ecosystem that can accept and process both fiat currency and cryptocurrency. The TraXion ecosystem aims to facilitate “peer-to-peer lending, remittances, savings, insurance, investments, and philanthropy”. The organization will provide white-label platforms which will allow banks, operators, and agencies to accommodate cross-border transactions in a number of jurisdictions. The vision of the company is to facilitate positive social impact by funding NGOs via the transaction fees collected on the platform. The TraXion platform will leverage existing services such as payment gateways, remittance centers, and fundraising platforms. TXN token holder receive voting rights with regards to the NGOs that have access to the organization’s escrow fund.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.5
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

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

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

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
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)?

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is clearly discussed, but uses statistics without proper attribution. Use cases are presented through graphical figures. Platform features are briefly discussed with low levels of detail using bullet-points. The value proposition of the token is not adequately discussed. The team is presented in the whitepaper and the website along with short bio descriptions and links to social media profiles. The business plan is inadequate and the token model lacks detail. The company GitHub page is presented, which contains three repositories pertaining to token smart contracts. Legal considerations are discussed with moderate detail.

Readability: The whitepaper easy to read. There is no indication that the company is attempting to mislead the reader but some aspects of the platform could be further elaborated on.

Transparency: The current status with regards to partnerships is not made clear. In other words, the organization states that the company “plans” to partner with many reputable organizations such as MasterCard Service Provider, but the current level of involvement with the company is not clearly discussed. Furthermore, the details as how the revenue projections of the platform was derived is not made clear and the technical implementation lacks detail.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Business-related content presented in the whitepaper is lacking. There is a brief market overview. Revenue streams for various aspects of the platform are projected, but figures are presented without discussion of assumptions or justifications. The token model is inadequately discussed. The value proposition for token holders is not made clear. Fee structure and voting mechanisms for token holders is not outlined.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The technology plan presentation is quite weak and mostly consists of a discussion on Hyperledger Fabric as opposed to discussing specific technical aspects of the TraXion ecosystem. Discussion regarding technology infrastructure and the justification of using Hyperledger Fabric as opposed to competing solutions is not discussed in the whitepaper. It’s not clear whether the organization intends to migrate from the Ethereum blockchain.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal information is presented towards the end of the document and contains discussion regarding the risks associated with the platform/tokens and token sale. Residents from the United States of America, China, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and North Korea are not currently permitted to participate in the token sale. It is stated that “the TraXion token does not have the legal qualification of a security since it does not give any rights to dividends or interests”.

Documentation Market

Product

1.8
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
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: Compared to most blockchain-based projects that aim to provide financial services, the company does not adequately describe how the platform differentiates itself from the competition. There is a section in the whitepaper that discusses TraXion versus other platforms, however the discussion is vague. It is stated that “apart from other budding solutions with similar models, TraXion’s potential poses superiority in terms of creating a more complete platform where both the banked and unbanked will enjoy equal yet empowering opportunities and access to resources”. Specific platforms that aiming to achieve the same goal are not discussed.

Readiness: It is stated that the platform has existing products: payment platform, wallet, personal finance platform, and fundraising platform. When investigating the company GitHub page, only content regarding the token sale is publicly available. The existing services which will extend the capability of the TraXion ecosystem include GavaGives.com (Fundraising Platform), TraXionPay.com_( Payment Platform), and TraXionWallet (white-labeled wallet solution of GavaGives.com).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented as follows: Early 2017 – Formation of Blockchain Dev Hub Mid 2017 – Launch of Payment Platform – Launch of Fundraising Platform 2018 – Initial Coin Offering Q2 2018 – TraXion Wallet Capability Q3 2018 – SMARTER Fundraising End of 2018 – Crypto Trading on Wallet Early 2019 – Whitelabel Remittance Portal Late 2019 – Peer-to-Peer Lending The number of milestones presented in the roadmap is fairly limited and the amount of detail included is limited. Business development related milestones are lacking.

Current Position within Roadmap: The platform has successfully reached the milestones set out by the roadmap but has yet to integrate blockchain functionality into existing services.

Feasiblity: The platform is not particularly technologically complex but the feasibility of achieving meaningful partnerships as outlined in the whitepaper (Hyperledger, IBM, etc) is quite ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: It is not evident that the platform provides innovation with respect to blockchain technology.

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly 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.

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)?

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.)

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 platform are those that would benefit from financial services, including those that are currently unbanked. As such, the target user base is the global mass market.

Market Penetration Potential: The market of financial services is highly difficult to penetrate as a startup company. Especially considering the number of direct competitors that TraXion faces and the regulatory obstacles that will impede their development.

Direct Competition: Other social funding platforms include (but are not limited to) – Alice – Acorn – ixo Foundation – Kora Network – Aidcoin – Giveth – BitGive

Solution Advantage: The most notable advantage of the platform is that the platform is to be build on existing products/services. Otherwise, the platform does not provide any distinct advantage to most competitors.

Blockchain Disruption: The high level of potential for disruption with the utilization of blockchain technology in the financial sector is evident. The organization aims to provide aid to those with a lack of access to modern banking services and help fund philanthropic organizations. However, the solution is described in vague terms and thus, the effect of blockchain technology as described by the solution lacks clarity.

Long-Term Vision: The whitepaper contains multiple vague statements regarding the vision of the platform stating that the company aims to ” put trust back to the community to be able to give more and help more people around the world” and that “the possibilities for cryptocurrencies and blockchain for good are unlimited”. It is explicitly stated that beyond financial inclusion, transparency and accountability, the organization “ultimately wants to create social impact”. However, with these long-term goals do not necessarily align with the milestones set out on the roadmap.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.0
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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - A couple of partnerships connected to founders or advisors.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The parent company is Pluma Technologies Ltd. Information regarding the company is not easily accessible and it is not clear whether the organization has gone through funding rounds.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 14 core team members presented in the whitepaper (only 12 are shown on the company website), along with 11 advisors (only 9 are shown on the company website). The team structure is presented as follows: Ann Cuisia-Lindayag (CEO) Tamer Maher (COO) Fernando Contreras Jr. (CTO) Roberto Calida (CFO) Miguel Pilar (Head of Business Development) Alvin Veroy (Head of Blockchain and Infrastructure) Jojy Azurin (Head of Business Strategies) Jason Dela Rosa (Head of DevOps) Raymonde Sawal (Marketing Head In Charge of UK) Jon Margalit (Biz Dev, North American Region) Iurii Znak (Marketing & Investment Consultant) Jourdan Sebastian (Market Influencer) Michael Samonte (Lead JS Developer) Christopher Asinas (Community Manager) Positions of some team members based on their LinkedIn profile do not align with the positions listed on the company website/whitepaper. For example, the CIO is listed as the CTO on the individual’s LinkedIn page. The CTO (Fernando Contreras Jr.) does not disclose their involvement with the organization on their LinkedIn page and is also concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. Most of the other team members are also involved with other projects. As a result, overall team commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: The LinkedIn profile of the CFO could not be found via manual search. All other core team members provide links to their LinkedIn profiles on the company website. LinkedIn profiles of C-level executives were investigated and it was found that there is no content regarding each individual’s roles and responsibilities at TraXion. At best, there is a generic description of the company (based on the CEO’s LinkedIn profile).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: It is not evident that there are team members that have had extensive experience with cryptocurrency from a technical development perspective. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of individuals from the banking/financial sector. The CEO claims to have “advanced in the corporate scene of banking and finance”, but further details are not evident. However, the team possesses individuals that have worked with non-profit organizations and donation services.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a moderate balance between individuals with a technical background and those with experience with business development. However, there is a lack of individuals with blockchain development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships are listed in the whitepaper as follows: – MasterCard – IBM – SEACOOP – UnionBank – GlobalLinker However, the extent of the relationships with these organizations are not clear. The organization is ” in the process of securing and finalizing partnerships with MasterCard and IBM”. Notable confirmed partnerships with a considerable user base is not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.0
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
Token Economy

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

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: There is a specific section in the whitepaper that discusses the unique selling proposition of the platform, but not the token itself. The value of the platform is primarily the savings that are “enjoyed by the ordinary users of TraXion through highly reduced transaction fees” when compared to traditional banks. It is not clear that the token has inherent value or whether token holders receive some sort of meaningful advantage. Voting rights for token holders is vaguely discussed.

Token Economy: Details regarding the token economics of the platform are inadequately discussed. Earn/spend mechanisms are not presented adequately. The majority of the whitepaper discusses the benefits that blockchain technology will bring to the banking services and the company’s intention to be philanthropic.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that token holders will be able to vote on NGOs that will have access to the platform’s escrow fund that is intended to assist “projects relevant to healthcare, clean energy, agriculture, water, education and livelihood to marginalized communities”. The voting process along with a scoring system will be used to assess NGOs, both of which are described with very low levels of detail in the whitepaper. Decentralization does not seem to be emphasized as a paradigm shift.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap; N/A Hard cap: 100,000 ETH The hard cap is inadequately justified. It seems as though the value of the hard cap was arbitrarily chosen.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The fund allocation in presented in the whitepaper as follows: 35% – Platform development 30% – Business development 20% – Legal and compliance 15% – Operations Further details are not provided.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 50% – Token sale 20% – Team (locked for 12 months) 5% – Incentivize developers, partners, strategists, and other members of the community 20% – TraXion’s parent company, Pluma Technologies Ltd, and will be held as a provision for future expenses, partnerships, business development, marketing and strategic acquisitions (locked for 12 months) 3% – Bounty program 2% – Corporate social responsibility.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is clearly discussed, but uses statistics without proper attribution. Use cases are presented through graphical figures. Platform features are briefly discussed with low levels of detail using bullet-points. The value proposition of the token is not adequately discussed. The team is presented in the whitepaper and the website along with short bio descriptions and links to social media profiles. The business plan is inadequate and the token model lacks detail. The company GitHub page is presented, which contains three repositories pertaining to token smart contracts. Legal considerations are discussed with moderate detail.

Readability: The whitepaper easy to read. There is no indication that the company is attempting to mislead the reader but some aspects of the platform could be further elaborated on.

Transparency: The current status with regards to partnerships is not made clear. In other words, the organization states that the company “plans” to partner with many reputable organizations such as MasterCard Service Provider, but the current level of involvement with the company is not clearly discussed. Furthermore, the details as how the revenue projections of the platform was derived is not made clear and the technical implementation lacks detail.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Business-related content presented in the whitepaper is lacking. There is a brief market overview. Revenue streams for various aspects of the platform are projected, but figures are presented without discussion of assumptions or justifications. The token model is inadequately discussed. The value proposition for token holders is not made clear. Fee structure and voting mechanisms for token holders is not outlined.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The technology plan presentation is quite weak and mostly consists of a discussion on Hyperledger Fabric as opposed to discussing specific technical aspects of the TraXion ecosystem. Discussion regarding technology infrastructure and the justification of using Hyperledger Fabric as opposed to competing solutions is not discussed in the whitepaper. It’s not clear whether the organization intends to migrate from the Ethereum blockchain.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal information is presented towards the end of the document and contains discussion regarding the risks associated with the platform/tokens and token sale. Residents from the United States of America, China, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and North Korea are not currently permitted to participate in the token sale. It is stated that “the TraXion token does not have the legal qualification of a security since it does not give any rights to dividends or interests”.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

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

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

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
2.5

Product

Differentiation: Compared to most blockchain-based projects that aim to provide financial services, the company does not adequately describe how the platform differentiates itself from the competition. There is a section in the whitepaper that discusses TraXion versus other platforms, however the discussion is vague. It is stated that “apart from other budding solutions with similar models, TraXion’s potential poses superiority in terms of creating a more complete platform where both the banked and unbanked will enjoy equal yet empowering opportunities and access to resources”. Specific platforms that aiming to achieve the same goal are not discussed.

Readiness: It is stated that the platform has existing products: payment platform, wallet, personal finance platform, and fundraising platform. When investigating the company GitHub page, only content regarding the token sale is publicly available. The existing services which will extend the capability of the TraXion ecosystem include GavaGives.com (Fundraising Platform), TraXionPay.com_( Payment Platform), and TraXionWallet (white-labeled wallet solution of GavaGives.com).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented as follows: Early 2017 – Formation of Blockchain Dev Hub Mid 2017 – Launch of Payment Platform – Launch of Fundraising Platform 2018 – Initial Coin Offering Q2 2018 – TraXion Wallet Capability Q3 2018 – SMARTER Fundraising End of 2018 – Crypto Trading on Wallet Early 2019 – Whitelabel Remittance Portal Late 2019 – Peer-to-Peer Lending The number of milestones presented in the roadmap is fairly limited and the amount of detail included is limited. Business development related milestones are lacking.

Current Position within Roadmap: The platform has successfully reached the milestones set out by the roadmap but has yet to integrate blockchain functionality into existing services.

Feasiblity: The platform is not particularly technologically complex but the feasibility of achieving meaningful partnerships as outlined in the whitepaper (Hyperledger, IBM, etc) is quite ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: It is not evident that the platform provides innovation with respect to blockchain technology.

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
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:
1.8

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are those that would benefit from financial services, including those that are currently unbanked. As such, the target user base is the global mass market.

Market Penetration Potential: The market of financial services is highly difficult to penetrate as a startup company. Especially considering the number of direct competitors that TraXion faces and the regulatory obstacles that will impede their development.

Direct Competition: Other social funding platforms include (but are not limited to) – Alice – Acorn – ixo Foundation – Kora Network – Aidcoin – Giveth – BitGive

Solution Advantage: The most notable advantage of the platform is that the platform is to be build on existing products/services. Otherwise, the platform does not provide any distinct advantage to most competitors.

Blockchain Disruption: The high level of potential for disruption with the utilization of blockchain technology in the financial sector is evident. The organization aims to provide aid to those with a lack of access to modern banking services and help fund philanthropic organizations. However, the solution is described in vague terms and thus, the effect of blockchain technology as described by the solution lacks clarity.

Long-Term Vision: The whitepaper contains multiple vague statements regarding the vision of the platform stating that the company aims to ” put trust back to the community to be able to give more and help more people around the world” and that “the possibilities for cryptocurrencies and blockchain for good are unlimited”. It is explicitly stated that beyond financial inclusion, transparency and accountability, the organization “ultimately wants to create social impact”. However, with these long-term goals do not necessarily align with the milestones set out on the roadmap.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly 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.

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)?

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.)

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: The parent company is Pluma Technologies Ltd. Information regarding the company is not easily accessible and it is not clear whether the organization has gone through funding rounds.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 14 core team members presented in the whitepaper (only 12 are shown on the company website), along with 11 advisors (only 9 are shown on the company website). The team structure is presented as follows: Ann Cuisia-Lindayag (CEO) Tamer Maher (COO) Fernando Contreras Jr. (CTO) Roberto Calida (CFO) Miguel Pilar (Head of Business Development) Alvin Veroy (Head of Blockchain and Infrastructure) Jojy Azurin (Head of Business Strategies) Jason Dela Rosa (Head of DevOps) Raymonde Sawal (Marketing Head In Charge of UK) Jon Margalit (Biz Dev, North American Region) Iurii Znak (Marketing & Investment Consultant) Jourdan Sebastian (Market Influencer) Michael Samonte (Lead JS Developer) Christopher Asinas (Community Manager) Positions of some team members based on their LinkedIn profile do not align with the positions listed on the company website/whitepaper. For example, the CIO is listed as the CTO on the individual’s LinkedIn page. The CTO (Fernando Contreras Jr.) does not disclose their involvement with the organization on their LinkedIn page and is also concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. Most of the other team members are also involved with other projects. As a result, overall team commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: The LinkedIn profile of the CFO could not be found via manual search. All other core team members provide links to their LinkedIn profiles on the company website. LinkedIn profiles of C-level executives were investigated and it was found that there is no content regarding each individual’s roles and responsibilities at TraXion. At best, there is a generic description of the company (based on the CEO’s LinkedIn profile).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: It is not evident that there are team members that have had extensive experience with cryptocurrency from a technical development perspective. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of individuals from the banking/financial sector. The CEO claims to have “advanced in the corporate scene of banking and finance”, but further details are not evident. However, the team possesses individuals that have worked with non-profit organizations and donation services.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a moderate balance between individuals with a technical background and those with experience with business development. However, there is a lack of individuals with blockchain development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships are listed in the whitepaper as follows: – MasterCard – IBM – SEACOOP – UnionBank – GlobalLinker However, the extent of the relationships with these organizations are not clear. The organization is ” in the process of securing and finalizing partnerships with MasterCard and IBM”. Notable confirmed partnerships with a considerable user base is 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - A couple of partnerships connected to founders or advisors.
Company and Team Score:
2.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: There is a specific section in the whitepaper that discusses the unique selling proposition of the platform, but not the token itself. The value of the platform is primarily the savings that are “enjoyed by the ordinary users of TraXion through highly reduced transaction fees” when compared to traditional banks. It is not clear that the token has inherent value or whether token holders receive some sort of meaningful advantage. Voting rights for token holders is vaguely discussed.

Token Economy: Details regarding the token economics of the platform are inadequately discussed. Earn/spend mechanisms are not presented adequately. The majority of the whitepaper discusses the benefits that blockchain technology will bring to the banking services and the company’s intention to be philanthropic.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that token holders will be able to vote on NGOs that will have access to the platform’s escrow fund that is intended to assist “projects relevant to healthcare, clean energy, agriculture, water, education and livelihood to marginalized communities”. The voting process along with a scoring system will be used to assess NGOs, both of which are described with very low levels of detail in the whitepaper. Decentralization does not seem to be emphasized as a paradigm shift.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap; N/A Hard cap: 100,000 ETH The hard cap is inadequately justified. It seems as though the value of the hard cap was arbitrarily chosen.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The fund allocation in presented in the whitepaper as follows: 35% – Platform development 30% – Business development 20% – Legal and compliance 15% – Operations Further details are not provided.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 50% – Token sale 20% – Team (locked for 12 months) 5% – Incentivize developers, partners, strategists, and other members of the community 20% – TraXion’s parent company, Pluma Technologies Ltd, and will be held as a provision for future expenses, partnerships, business development, marketing and strategic acquisitions (locked for 12 months) 3% – Bounty program 2% – Corporate social responsibility.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
Token Economy

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

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:
2.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website