WONO

WONO combines Airbnb, Turo and Upwork on blockchain. Users act as vendors, customers, guarantors and arbitrators, earning and spending on one platform without taxes and currency exchange worldwide.

About WONO

WONO is a platform that allows users to exchange or rent assets and services in a decentralized manner while saving costs associated with taxes and exchanging fiat currencies. The platform will facilitate the sharing of space, transpiration, miscellaneous assets (gym memberships, gadgets, etc). and services. WONO tokens are used as a means of exchange, as well as for insurance and arbitration.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The company website provides a whitepaper, a lightpaper and a pitch-deck for the platform. The technical discussion is moderately detailed. Business-related aspects of the platform (market research, competitor evaluation, etc) are mostly included but the fundamental basis of the business plan is based on unfounded claims. Legal content can be found through a variety of documents provided on the project website. The company GitHub page is available.

Readability: The whitepaper is fairly lengthy and focuses on discussing the proposed features of the platform. The documents are not particularly complex and does not contain an overuse of technical terms or buzzwords. There is somewhat of a lack of professionalism with respect to claims regarding regulations without reputable resources backing the organization’s claims.

Transparency: The limitations of of the platform are unclear and not discussed thoroughly. The justification for utilizing commission fees for the platform are fairly weak. Competitors are briefly discussed. The GitHub page contains 3 repositories (which are labeled: api, client, and protocol). The organization states that their tokens smart contracts are audited by Coinmercenary.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The document includes a brief assessment of the current landscape with respect to peer-to-peer marketplaces.
The organization makes a fairly bold claim in one of there blog posts (https://steemit.com/ico/@wonoworld/why-zero-commission-is-an-utopia), stating that “zero commission is [a] utopia… or, more likely, a scam”.

Additionally, there are some vague claims that “according to common cryptocurrency legislation, token income is only taxable after conversion to fiat”. Of course, this is not conclusive as regulations regarding cryptocurrency are still in development and are sure to differ between various jurisdictions. The statement is not backed by reputable resources. Another example of a baseless claim is presented in the whitepaper as follows: “In most countries, tokens are qualified as digital assets, not money. Thus, all tokens earned on the WONO platform are not taxable until they are converted to fiat”. As a result, various elements of the business plan are based on based on uncertain claims.

However, to the organization’s benefit, the marketing and growth/scaling strategy is discussed specifically in the whitepaper.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The WONO ecosystem consists of the protocol which will facilitate the development of a set of decentralized applications (Ethereum smart contracts), the API, and the front-end web application.

Users will be required to provide identification to access the platform. In the whitepaper it is inferred that the user will be able to connect to services such as Civic and Uport for KYC purposes. Further details with respect to implementation are not specifically discussed.

The level of detail provided with regards to the technical aspects of the platform is moderate. Most of the content discussed the platform in layman terms and discusses the roles of various stakeholders of the platform. Discussion of various aspects of the platform are only discussed from a high-level overview perspective. For example, the platform will use a Reputation rating, which assesses the user based on a number of criteria (transparency, reliability, etc). The exact method in which a score is calculated for each user is not discussed. Three public repositories are available on the company website.

The platform is operated on the Ethereum blockchain and utilizes IPFS for data storage. Plans to migrate to another blockchain is not clearly presented.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The website contains a number of documents which outline a number of legal considerations of the platform including the Howey test, the agreements for WONO tokens, the terms a conditions, and a comprehensive risk memorandum. A placeholder for the organization’s SAFTs can also be found. Overall, legal content is fairly comprehensive.

 

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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?

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

Product

Differentiation: There is a chart that compares general competitors (Origin Protocol, Bee Token, and Develop). The following categories are included in the chart:

– Direct deal
– Trusted deal
– Back-to-back deal
– Chain of deals
– Deal cancellation insurance
– Automated arbitrage
– Open arbitrage

The features above are fairly specific trading/exchanging mechanisms that are adequately discussed in the whitepaper and differentiates WONO from similar platforms.

Readiness: The organization has released the alpha version of the platform (the URL implies the release of an alpha version of the product but the link on the website states that it is simply a proof-of-concept). It appears that the alpha version of the product is an interactive wireframe. The current stage of development is not clearly discussed. It is simply stated that “at the moment of the User account registration the platform will offer User to create a intermediate Ethereum wallet to improve usability, though an existing Ethereum wallet can be also used for the WONO keys storage”. The majority of the technical development shown on the company GitHub page pertains to token contract development within the “protocol” repository.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A very basic roadmap is presented in the lightpaper as follows:

Q1 2018 – Business concept
Q2 2018 – Pre-sale
Q3 2018 – Crowdsale
Q2 2019 – Pre-release
Q3 2019 – Release

A more comprehensive roadmap is included in the whitepaper as follows:

Q1 2018
– Coming up with the idea and forming a business concept.
Q2 2018
– Private Pre-Sale, preparation of vital business documents (Blue Book, Pitch scenarios, planning the business structure development, publishing an interactive mock-up of the project, public Pre-Sale.
Q3 2018
– Publishing an interactive mock-up of the project, establishing the structure of the business, public Pre-Sale, running the ICO, placing tokens on crypto stocks, audit and requirements testing of the WONO API, launching the PoC (alpha) in the public network.
Q4 2018
– WONO PROTOCOL publishing with “CLIENT test network launch (beta), forming a preliminary strategy of the product.
Q1 2019
– Preparing WONO for the market (release candidate), launching the technical support services, WONO audit and requirements testing: product strategy implementation / product model accordance / security testing / high load fault tolerance.
Q2 2019
– WONO market release, user migration from the test network to the Ethereum network, start of the marketing campaign.
Q3 2019
– Reparations for the massive user registration, market expansion.
Q4 2019
– Scaling the project, launch and expansion of the public marketing campaigns.
Q1 2020
– Launch of the partner program, product strategy updates, project growth support.
Q2 2020
– Analysis and further business growth.

Overall milestones are discussed with regards to both business and technology related developments. The strategy for territorial expansion is also discussed in the whitepaper.

Current Position within Roadmap: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed in the whitepaper, but technical developments can be tracked on the project GitHub page and a proof-of-concept is available on the company website. Notable business-related achievements are minimal.

Feasiblity: Due to the lack of technical development thus far, the goal to have the WONO PROTOCOL developed to the point where it can be tested in Q3 2018 seems quite ambitious. The organization has only managed to develop what seems to be an interactive wireframe.

Blockchain Innovation: It is not evident that the project will provide value (from a blockchain technology perspective) outside its ecosystem. WONO aims to utilize blockchain technology to accomplish their goals as opposed to developing innovative blockchain technology.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

3.0
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

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

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

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 target user base is considerable. The platform will have an impact on a multitude of sectors that facilitate peer-to-peer markets and benefits vendors as well as customers (and guarantors and arbitrators).

Market Penetration Potential: WONO faces many competitors as it aims to provide a service for freelancers and peer-to-peer services, both from the perspective of traditional organizations and blockchain-based projects. As a result, market penetration will be difficult.

Direct Competition: The platform competes with traditional peer-to-peer organizations such as Airbnb, Turo, Upwork, TaskRabbit and partly Craigslist. There are a number of direct competitors that aim to develop a decentralized peer-to-peer marketplace that aims to facilitate the growth of sharing economies: Origin Protocol, Bee Token, Develop, and ShareRing.

Solution Advantage: The advantages of the platform are primarily trading/exchange mechanisms as opposed to fundamental technical advantages. The platform does not have a significant business network to expand to. As a result, the solution has an advantage when compared directly to similar projects, but the advantages are fairly weak considering that the advantages are simply features that could conceivably be implemented on other platforms quite easily (especially if the organization plans to open-source the platform).

Blockchain Disruption: The implementation of blockchain technology within peer-to-peer economies is evident. The largest advantage of decentralizing the market is reducing commission fees. As described by the solution, the implementation when considering regulatory compliance is questionable.

Long-Term Vision: The organization aims to develop a platform where users can rely entirely on WONO without sponsoring banks by allowing users to get compensated for freelance work and spend their earnings on assets and/or services on the peer-to-peer platform. With respect to concrete plans, WONO aims to be developed on the Ethereum blockchain. There are no plans to migrate to another blockchain and technological scaling issues are not sufficiently considered with respect to the organization’s long term goals.

 

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..."]).

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?

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.

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: WONO is a privately-held company based in Russia. Further information on the company is not easily accessible. It is not clear if the company has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 14 individuals and 8 advisors are presented on the company website, along with job titles and links to their LinkedIn profiles (for most team members). Major concerns with respect to team commitment are not evident and the team possesses a moderate (approximately 5) individuals with a development position, one of which is focused on blockchain development.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: When investigating LinkedIn profile of one of the the individuals with the position of “Full-stack developer” (Arthur Lavrischev), it is seen that from the bio description that the individual is actively person is presently “looking for a AI/Biotech/Blockchain project”. Information on the other full-stack developer (Artem Nikonov) is limited to primarily job titles and show that the individual has worked as a python developer in the past. There are high levels of information presented with respect to job description shown on the the LinkedIn profile of the blockchain developer (Tapendra Shee). The bio description that the organization provides for the backend developer (Muhammad Faizan Ul Haq) states that he has experience developing dApps and Ethereum smart contracts. However, verifiable experience was not found on the individuals LinkedIn profile. The co-founders disclose their involvement with WONO, but the level of information presented in their LinkedIn profiles is fairly low, with the exception of the COO.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Overall, the level of information presented with regards to past work experience of team members is fairly low. The experience of the lead team members include working as a CEO, Editor-in-Chief, and Head of Marketing for organizations with seemingly low relevance to the project. Those with a technical positions have show prior relevant experience, but there seems to be a lack of verifiable blockchain-related development experience.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There seems to be a lack of individuals with verifiable blockchain-related development experience (there is only one individual working as the blockchain developer and his LinkedIn profile contains low levels of information regarding his capabilities as a blockchain developer.). However, from a general technological and business development perspective, there does not seem to be major concerns with respect to a lack of manpower.

Strategic Partnerships: It is not evident that the organization has notable partnerships or launch partners.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.3
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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 use cases of WONO are listed as follows
– Paying for Asset rent or services
– Paying platform fees
– Crowd deal Insurance
– Crowd deal arbitration

WONO tokens are essential to the platform.

Token Economy: The total token supply is 79,166,667 tokens.

Various aspects of the token economy are discussed with high levels of detail. The different trading/spend/earn mechanisms are thoroughly discussed in the document.

System Decentralization (besides token): Most aspects of the platform seem to be decentralized. The platform will operate on the Ethereum blockchain and will utilize IPFS. Governance structure is not adequately discussed.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The soft cap is $7MM USD.
The hard cap is $20MM USD.

The use of proceeds is not adequately described but seem justifiable (specific costs are not discussed).

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in relation to multiple funding scenarios (soft cap, moderate, average, and hard cap). The allocations vary depending on funding amount and the criteria are listed as follows (soft cap):

55% – Engineering/product development
15% – Marketing
10% – Business development
15% – Legal
5% – Community

Further discussion with respect to the costs associated with each criteria is not included.

Token Allocation: Four different funding scenarios are outlined in the whitepaper ($7MM, $10MM, $15MM, and $20MM). The token allocation based on the hard cap of $20MM is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

60% – Token sale
20% – Team and owners
12% – Reserve
5% – Advisors
3% – Bounty

It is stated that all unsold tokens will burned. The vesting periods are outlined in the whitepaper as follows:
– 3% of the tokens will be unlocked immediately after the ICO
– the remaining 17% are released according to a 3 year vesting plan with a 1-year cliff, which is initiated upon the release of the proof-of-concept

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The company website provides a whitepaper, a lightpaper and a pitch-deck for the platform. The technical discussion is moderately detailed. Business-related aspects of the platform (market research, competitor evaluation, etc) are mostly included but the fundamental basis of the business plan is based on unfounded claims. Legal content can be found through a variety of documents provided on the project website. The company GitHub page is available.

Readability: The whitepaper is fairly lengthy and focuses on discussing the proposed features of the platform. The documents are not particularly complex and does not contain an overuse of technical terms or buzzwords. There is somewhat of a lack of professionalism with respect to claims regarding regulations without reputable resources backing the organization’s claims.

Transparency: The limitations of of the platform are unclear and not discussed thoroughly. The justification for utilizing commission fees for the platform are fairly weak. Competitors are briefly discussed. The GitHub page contains 3 repositories (which are labeled: api, client, and protocol). The organization states that their tokens smart contracts are audited by Coinmercenary.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The document includes a brief assessment of the current landscape with respect to peer-to-peer marketplaces.
The organization makes a fairly bold claim in one of there blog posts (https://steemit.com/ico/@wonoworld/why-zero-commission-is-an-utopia), stating that “zero commission is [a] utopia… or, more likely, a scam”.

Additionally, there are some vague claims that “according to common cryptocurrency legislation, token income is only taxable after conversion to fiat”. Of course, this is not conclusive as regulations regarding cryptocurrency are still in development and are sure to differ between various jurisdictions. The statement is not backed by reputable resources. Another example of a baseless claim is presented in the whitepaper as follows: “In most countries, tokens are qualified as digital assets, not money. Thus, all tokens earned on the WONO platform are not taxable until they are converted to fiat”. As a result, various elements of the business plan are based on based on uncertain claims.

However, to the organization’s benefit, the marketing and growth/scaling strategy is discussed specifically in the whitepaper.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The WONO ecosystem consists of the protocol which will facilitate the development of a set of decentralized applications (Ethereum smart contracts), the API, and the front-end web application.

Users will be required to provide identification to access the platform. In the whitepaper it is inferred that the user will be able to connect to services such as Civic and Uport for KYC purposes. Further details with respect to implementation are not specifically discussed.

The level of detail provided with regards to the technical aspects of the platform is moderate. Most of the content discussed the platform in layman terms and discusses the roles of various stakeholders of the platform. Discussion of various aspects of the platform are only discussed from a high-level overview perspective. For example, the platform will use a Reputation rating, which assesses the user based on a number of criteria (transparency, reliability, etc). The exact method in which a score is calculated for each user is not discussed. Three public repositories are available on the company website.

The platform is operated on the Ethereum blockchain and utilizes IPFS for data storage. Plans to migrate to another blockchain is not clearly presented.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The website contains a number of documents which outline a number of legal considerations of the platform including the Howey test, the agreements for WONO tokens, the terms a conditions, and a comprehensive risk memorandum. A placeholder for the organization’s SAFTs can also be found. Overall, legal content is fairly comprehensive.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.
Documentation Score:
3.3

Product

Differentiation: There is a chart that compares general competitors (Origin Protocol, Bee Token, and Develop). The following categories are included in the chart:

– Direct deal
– Trusted deal
– Back-to-back deal
– Chain of deals
– Deal cancellation insurance
– Automated arbitrage
– Open arbitrage

The features above are fairly specific trading/exchanging mechanisms that are adequately discussed in the whitepaper and differentiates WONO from similar platforms.

Readiness: The organization has released the alpha version of the platform (the URL implies the release of an alpha version of the product but the link on the website states that it is simply a proof-of-concept). It appears that the alpha version of the product is an interactive wireframe. The current stage of development is not clearly discussed. It is simply stated that “at the moment of the User account registration the platform will offer User to create a intermediate Ethereum wallet to improve usability, though an existing Ethereum wallet can be also used for the WONO keys storage”. The majority of the technical development shown on the company GitHub page pertains to token contract development within the “protocol” repository.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A very basic roadmap is presented in the lightpaper as follows:

Q1 2018 – Business concept
Q2 2018 – Pre-sale
Q3 2018 – Crowdsale
Q2 2019 – Pre-release
Q3 2019 – Release

A more comprehensive roadmap is included in the whitepaper as follows:

Q1 2018
– Coming up with the idea and forming a business concept.
Q2 2018
– Private Pre-Sale, preparation of vital business documents (Blue Book, Pitch scenarios, planning the business structure development, publishing an interactive mock-up of the project, public Pre-Sale.
Q3 2018
– Publishing an interactive mock-up of the project, establishing the structure of the business, public Pre-Sale, running the ICO, placing tokens on crypto stocks, audit and requirements testing of the WONO API, launching the PoC (alpha) in the public network.
Q4 2018
– WONO PROTOCOL publishing with “CLIENT test network launch (beta), forming a preliminary strategy of the product.
Q1 2019
– Preparing WONO for the market (release candidate), launching the technical support services, WONO audit and requirements testing: product strategy implementation / product model accordance / security testing / high load fault tolerance.
Q2 2019
– WONO market release, user migration from the test network to the Ethereum network, start of the marketing campaign.
Q3 2019
– Reparations for the massive user registration, market expansion.
Q4 2019
– Scaling the project, launch and expansion of the public marketing campaigns.
Q1 2020
– Launch of the partner program, product strategy updates, project growth support.
Q2 2020
– Analysis and further business growth.

Overall milestones are discussed with regards to both business and technology related developments. The strategy for territorial expansion is also discussed in the whitepaper.

Current Position within Roadmap: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed in the whitepaper, but technical developments can be tracked on the project GitHub page and a proof-of-concept is available on the company website. Notable business-related achievements are minimal.

Feasiblity: Due to the lack of technical development thus far, the goal to have the WONO PROTOCOL developed to the point where it can be tested in Q3 2018 seems quite ambitious. The organization has only managed to develop what seems to be an interactive wireframe.

Blockchain Innovation: It is not evident that the project will provide value (from a blockchain technology perspective) outside its ecosystem. WONO aims to utilize blockchain technology to accomplish their goals as opposed to developing innovative 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.7

Market

Target User Base: The target user base is considerable. The platform will have an impact on a multitude of sectors that facilitate peer-to-peer markets and benefits vendors as well as customers (and guarantors and arbitrators).

Market Penetration Potential: WONO faces many competitors as it aims to provide a service for freelancers and peer-to-peer services, both from the perspective of traditional organizations and blockchain-based projects. As a result, market penetration will be difficult.

Direct Competition: The platform competes with traditional peer-to-peer organizations such as Airbnb, Turo, Upwork, TaskRabbit and partly Craigslist. There are a number of direct competitors that aim to develop a decentralized peer-to-peer marketplace that aims to facilitate the growth of sharing economies: Origin Protocol, Bee Token, Develop, and ShareRing.

Solution Advantage: The advantages of the platform are primarily trading/exchange mechanisms as opposed to fundamental technical advantages. The platform does not have a significant business network to expand to. As a result, the solution has an advantage when compared directly to similar projects, but the advantages are fairly weak considering that the advantages are simply features that could conceivably be implemented on other platforms quite easily (especially if the organization plans to open-source the platform).

Blockchain Disruption: The implementation of blockchain technology within peer-to-peer economies is evident. The largest advantage of decentralizing the market is reducing commission fees. As described by the solution, the implementation when considering regulatory compliance is questionable.

Long-Term Vision: The organization aims to develop a platform where users can rely entirely on WONO without sponsoring banks by allowing users to get compensated for freelance work and spend their earnings on assets and/or services on the peer-to-peer platform. With respect to concrete plans, WONO aims to be developed on the Ethereum blockchain. There are no plans to migrate to another blockchain and technological scaling issues are not sufficiently considered with respect to the organization’s long term goals.

 

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

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

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

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:
3.0

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: WONO is a privately-held company based in Russia. Further information on the company is not easily accessible. It is not clear if the company has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 14 individuals and 8 advisors are presented on the company website, along with job titles and links to their LinkedIn profiles (for most team members). Major concerns with respect to team commitment are not evident and the team possesses a moderate (approximately 5) individuals with a development position, one of which is focused on blockchain development.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: When investigating LinkedIn profile of one of the the individuals with the position of “Full-stack developer” (Arthur Lavrischev), it is seen that from the bio description that the individual is actively person is presently “looking for a AI/Biotech/Blockchain project”. Information on the other full-stack developer (Artem Nikonov) is limited to primarily job titles and show that the individual has worked as a python developer in the past. There are high levels of information presented with respect to job description shown on the the LinkedIn profile of the blockchain developer (Tapendra Shee). The bio description that the organization provides for the backend developer (Muhammad Faizan Ul Haq) states that he has experience developing dApps and Ethereum smart contracts. However, verifiable experience was not found on the individuals LinkedIn profile. The co-founders disclose their involvement with WONO, but the level of information presented in their LinkedIn profiles is fairly low, with the exception of the COO.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Overall, the level of information presented with regards to past work experience of team members is fairly low. The experience of the lead team members include working as a CEO, Editor-in-Chief, and Head of Marketing for organizations with seemingly low relevance to the project. Those with a technical positions have show prior relevant experience, but there seems to be a lack of verifiable blockchain-related development experience.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There seems to be a lack of individuals with verifiable blockchain-related development experience (there is only one individual working as the blockchain developer and his LinkedIn profile contains low levels of information regarding his capabilities as a blockchain developer.). However, from a general technological and business development perspective, there does not seem to be major concerns with respect to a lack of manpower.

Strategic Partnerships: It is not evident that the organization has notable partnerships or launch partners.

 

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..."]).

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?

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.

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
2.5

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The use cases of WONO are listed as follows
– Paying for Asset rent or services
– Paying platform fees
– Crowd deal Insurance
– Crowd deal arbitration

WONO tokens are essential to the platform.

Token Economy: The total token supply is 79,166,667 tokens.

Various aspects of the token economy are discussed with high levels of detail. The different trading/spend/earn mechanisms are thoroughly discussed in the document.

System Decentralization (besides token): Most aspects of the platform seem to be decentralized. The platform will operate on the Ethereum blockchain and will utilize IPFS. Governance structure is not adequately discussed.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The soft cap is $7MM USD.
The hard cap is $20MM USD.

The use of proceeds is not adequately described but seem justifiable (specific costs are not discussed).

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in relation to multiple funding scenarios (soft cap, moderate, average, and hard cap). The allocations vary depending on funding amount and the criteria are listed as follows (soft cap):

55% – Engineering/product development
15% – Marketing
10% – Business development
15% – Legal
5% – Community

Further discussion with respect to the costs associated with each criteria is not included.

Token Allocation: Four different funding scenarios are outlined in the whitepaper ($7MM, $10MM, $15MM, and $20MM). The token allocation based on the hard cap of $20MM is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

60% – Token sale
20% – Team and owners
12% – Reserve
5% – Advisors
3% – Bounty

It is stated that all unsold tokens will burned. The vesting periods are outlined in the whitepaper as follows:
– 3% of the tokens will be unlocked immediately after the ICO
– the remaining 17% are released according to a 3 year vesting plan with a 1-year cliff, which is initiated upon the release of the proof-of-concept

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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:
3.3

Use this code to share the ratings on your website