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

2.7
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

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.

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)?

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

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 is fairly minimal and the organization does not provide publicly viewable GitHub page.

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 current stage of development is not clearly discussed. As well, the limitations of the platform are unclear. The justification for utilizing commission fees for the platform are fairly weak and the company GitHub page is not publicly available.

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.

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: There is little legal content provided in the whitepaper, the lightpaper, as well as the website. In fact, there are claims regarding possible regulatory concerns (taxation, for example) that are vague and not backed by reputable references. As such, the amount of legal content provided is low and lack professionalism.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.3
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).

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
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 current stage of development is not clearly discussed. The company GitHub page is not available to assess the current technical stage of development. Based on the roadmap, most developments of the platform have been conceptual and that the organization has yet to achieve notable technical achievements.

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
– Establishing the structure of the business, running the ICO, placing tokens on crypto stocks, audit and requirements testing of the WONO PROTOCOL: economic model / security testing.
Q4 2018
– WONO PROTOCOL publishing, launching the technical support services, forming a preliminary strategy of the product development, audit and requirements testing of WONO API: product model / security testing / high load.
Q1 2019
– Launch of the WONO API, setting final product strategy, audit and requirements testing of the WONO CLIENT: product strategy / product model / security testing / high load.
Q2 2019
– Launch of the WONO trial version for the test Ethereum network, start of the preliminary marketing campaign, start of an aggressive PR-campaign.
Q3 2019
– Trial launch on the market, user migration from the test network to the Ethereum network, preparations for the massive user registration.
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 (although it is skewed more towards milestones focused on business).

Current Position within Roadmap: Based on the roadmap, the developments made by the organization are primarily conceptual. It is not evident that the organization has accomplished any notable technical achievements. The current stage of development is not adequately discussed in the whitepaper.

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.

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

2.0
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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..."]).

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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
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 10 individuals are presented on the company website, along with job titles and links to their LinkedIn profiles (for most team members). There are three advisors included (without links to social media profiles).

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: When investigating LinkedIn profile of the individual with the position of “Full-stack developer”, it is seen that the person is concurrently involved with other organizations and does not disclose their affiliation with the WONO. Furthermore, the bio description of the individual states that they are “looking for a new project”.

All three co-founders are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects. The 3 co-founders disclose their involvement with WONO, but the level of information presented in their LinkedIn profiles is fairly low.

One individual is listed as a core team member and is listed as a Lawyer, but upon further investigation of the individuals LinkedIn profile (which is not provided by WONO and must be found via manual search), the individual also does not disclose their affiliation with WONO and currently works as President of a law/business consulting firm.

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 3 co-founders include working as a CEO, Editor-in-Chief, and Head of Marketing for organizations with seemingly low relevance to the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The organization seems to have a signifcant lack of individuals that have had experience with blockchain-related development. In general, there is a lack of individuals with a technical background, as there is only one full-stack developer on the team.

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

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.2
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

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: The token allocation is presented as follows:

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

Vesting periods are not clearly presented and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

 

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 is fairly minimal and the organization does not provide publicly viewable GitHub page.

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 current stage of development is not clearly discussed. As well, the limitations of the platform are unclear. The justification for utilizing commission fees for the platform are fairly weak and the company GitHub page is not publicly available.

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.

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: There is little legal content provided in the whitepaper, the lightpaper, as well as the website. In fact, there are claims regarding possible regulatory concerns (taxation, for example) that are vague and not backed by reputable references. As such, the amount of legal content provided is low and lack professionalism.

 

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.

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.

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)?

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

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 current stage of development is not clearly discussed. The company GitHub page is not available to assess the current technical stage of development. Based on the roadmap, most developments of the platform have been conceptual and that the organization has yet to achieve notable technical achievements.

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
– Establishing the structure of the business, running the ICO, placing tokens on crypto stocks, audit and requirements testing of the WONO PROTOCOL: economic model / security testing.
Q4 2018
– WONO PROTOCOL publishing, launching the technical support services, forming a preliminary strategy of the product development, audit and requirements testing of WONO API: product model / security testing / high load.
Q1 2019
– Launch of the WONO API, setting final product strategy, audit and requirements testing of the WONO CLIENT: product strategy / product model / security testing / high load.
Q2 2019
– Launch of the WONO trial version for the test Ethereum network, start of the preliminary marketing campaign, start of an aggressive PR-campaign.
Q3 2019
– Trial launch on the market, user migration from the test network to the Ethereum network, preparations for the massive user registration.
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 (although it is skewed more towards milestones focused on business).

Current Position within Roadmap: Based on the roadmap, the developments made by the organization are primarily conceptual. It is not evident that the organization has accomplished any notable technical achievements. The current stage of development is not adequately discussed in the whitepaper.

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.

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).

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
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:
2.3

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 10 individuals are presented on the company website, along with job titles and links to their LinkedIn profiles (for most team members). There are three advisors included (without links to social media profiles).

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: When investigating LinkedIn profile of the individual with the position of “Full-stack developer”, it is seen that the person is concurrently involved with other organizations and does not disclose their affiliation with the WONO. Furthermore, the bio description of the individual states that they are “looking for a new project”.

All three co-founders are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects. The 3 co-founders disclose their involvement with WONO, but the level of information presented in their LinkedIn profiles is fairly low.

One individual is listed as a core team member and is listed as a Lawyer, but upon further investigation of the individuals LinkedIn profile (which is not provided by WONO and must be found via manual search), the individual also does not disclose their affiliation with WONO and currently works as President of a law/business consulting firm.

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 3 co-founders include working as a CEO, Editor-in-Chief, and Head of Marketing for organizations with seemingly low relevance to the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The organization seems to have a signifcant lack of individuals that have had experience with blockchain-related development. In general, there is a lack of individuals with a technical background, as there is only one full-stack developer on the team.

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)?

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..."]).

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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
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:
2.0

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: The token allocation is presented as follows:

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

Vesting periods are not clearly presented and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
3.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website