Worldopoly

Worldopoly is the world’s first mobile game to combine Augmented Reality, Geopositioning, Blockchain and Artificial intelligence within an engaging economic simulation and strategic multiplayer game.

About Worldopoly

Worldopoly plans to develop a real-time multi-player strategy game. The organization plans to combine augmented reality (AR) and Blockchain/DAG technology with world building gameplay. Every item in the game can be exchanged for WPT tokens. WPT tokens will be used as an in-game currency within the Worldopoly ecosystem.

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.

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper begins with a brief market overview with respect to the gaming market.

The unique features of the platform are listed in the document and are as follows:
* We launch in an environment where AR is being actively promoted by Apple and Google.
* We are pioneers in the field of meaningful implementation of Blockchain / DAG into a game.
* On top of this technological novelties, Worldopoly also provides a genuinely interesting gaming experience.

There is brief discussion regarding some of the technical considerations of the platform. Blockchain infrastructure is discussed vaguely and it is stated that Ethereum was chosen as the base platform due to its “customization possibilities and the constant improvements of the computing platform itself”. Some aspects are not discussed or with minimal detail (governance structure, legal considerations, dependencies).

Readability: Overall, the document is fairly easy to read. However, the gameplay could be presented with more clarity.

Transparency: There are some issues with the platform (and underlying technology) that are discussed in the whitepaper somewhat transparently. For example, two issues with implementation (due to the use of blockchain technology) are scalability and transaction speed. Worldopoly plans to address these issues by allocating a portion of the transactions to take place off-chain. However, details of the off-chain solution are not discussed in detail. Furthermore, Worldopoly plans to avoid blockchain-related irreversibility issues by use of “safety measures to prevent such scenarios and will expand them based on player feedback”. However, details of these safety measures are absent. The GitHub repository does not contain any meaningful content.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model is discussed fairly briefly.

It is stated that the features of the platform will align with the following principles:
* preventing “pay2win aversion” by casual gamers
* game mechanics that keep the players involved
* a clear and rewarding progression system
* the inclusion of a social component

The possibility of new advertising channels are also discussed briefly in the document. It is stated that users will be able to place ads on player-owned objects. Worldopoly plans to purchase tokens from the market “from time to time” to increase scarcity, however specific details are not provided. Fee structure is also not specifically outlined. Financial projections are also included in the document. Profitability criteria is discussed, along with investment metrics (NPV, IRR, payback period).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Discussion of technical aspects of the platform lacks detail. The underlying technology will utilize the Google Maps API. Ethereum and ByteBall will be supported for the platform but the document does not contain specific technical content which evaluates and compares various blockchain solutions. It is simply stated that Ethereum was chosen since the organization has seen “how it has improved since its inception” and ByteBall was chosen since “the commission for making a transaction is cheaper” compared to Ethereum. AI will be used for shape and building recognition, but further details are not provided.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a notable lack of content addressing legal considerations of the platform and the token sale. There is a very short disclaimer towards the end of the document which spans three sentences. It is stated that the “content is not legally binding for the initiating company.”

Documentation Market

Product

2.0
Product
Differentiation

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

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

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

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
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: The platform does little to differentiate itself from similar AR-focused blockchain games. Instead, the document contains a section which outlines the advantages of the platform in a somewhat vague manner. The main advantages of Worldopoly (as outlined in the whitepaper) are the engaging gameplay, utilization of AR, and the ability to introduce people to cryptocurrencies. These advantages are not unique to Worldopoly and apply to nearly all AR-focused blockchain games. Whether the game will have “engaging gameplay” is still unknown.

Readiness: A video demonstration of of the game (with very limited functionality) is available on the Worldopoly website. The Worldopoly GitHub page can be found which contains a single repository with only a README file (the entirety of the text is copied from the introductory paragraph of the whitepaper).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The whitepaper provides a funding-based development plan. The development plan lacks detail and does not provide quantitative information, other than the amount of funds for each funding level. For example, the first developmental stage is reached at 1000 ETH, where the “building of [the] Worldopoly economic system” and “finalization of game visual effects” will take place. The developmental roadmap contains milestones that are sufficiently detailed. Specific examples of feature implementations are discussed. For example, in September 2018, buildings (within the game) will have an effect on the value of other buildings in their area: “a brothel generates more money than a kiosk but, could increase the crime rate in the area, and as such, consequently depreciate the value of all the other buildings in the neighbourhood”. The majority of the milestones are focused on technical achievements/developments as opposed to business-related goals.

Current Position within Roadmap: The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2013 to 2020. There are approximately 15 milestones presented, with 4 milestones achieved at the time of writing this review. Notable milestones already achieved include the development of the game engine “from scratch” in 2014 and the composition of the financial model and the business plan in 2017. It is stated that by August 2018, the beta version of the mobile application will be released. Integration of AI for shape and building recognition will also be tested during this time. Based off of the lack of publicly available content on GitHub and the seemingly rudimentary video demonstration of the product, a beta release of the application in August 2018 is a fairly ambitious goal. The stable release of the mobile application is set for release in October/November 2018.

Feasiblity: Worldopoly aims to combine AR with blockchain and mobile gaming (as well as AI). The plan to have a stable release of the product available on the AppStore and PlayStore by October 2018 is fairly ambitious. Current developmental efforts are mostly unknown due to the lack of updates from the developers and the lack of publicly available content on GitHub.

Blockchain Innovation: The selection of blockchain solutions are included in the whitepaper but the level of detail provided is quite low. Two blockchain platforms are supported: Ethereum and ByteBall. It is stated that Ethereum was chosen due to “how it has improved since its inception”. On the other hand, ByteBall was also considered since “the commission for making a transaction is cheaper than Ethereum”. The justification for using either platform is not described with great detail. Tokens on one platform are redeemable on the other on a one-to-one basis.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

1.5
Market
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
Direct Competition

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for Worldopoly are those that would be interested in mobile gaming. When compared to particular genres of gaming such as MMORRPG, Worldopoly states that RTS has “wider mainstream appeal”. In the section of the whitepaper that covers market research, it is stated mobile gaming has a marketshare of over 40% in the gaming industry.

Market Penetration Potential: Mobile gaming is a competitive sector. Penetration of this market requires acquiring users that are accustomed to playing fairly well established games that have had lots of time for development, polish, and refinement of gameplay. Worldopoly aims to develop an ecosystem, of which the gameplay has not yet been proven to be successful. Simply combining AR and blockchain with mobile gaming is not enough to succeed in this market and the video demonstration of the product does not indicate that the game has engaging gameplay.

Direct Competition: The whitepaper addresses other blockchain-based games: Lordmancer II, Privateers Life, and Prospectors. The whitepaper primarily uses direct competitors to assess the feasibility and demand for blockchain-based games rather than a thorough and specific comparison between Worldopoly and its competitors. For example, it is stated that the “success of CryptoKitties, while not relevant for the RTS genre, shows that people are willing to invest in games with build in cryptocurrencies” However, some general advantages of the platform are listed. To summarize, compared to most other blockchain-related gaming platform, Worldopoly plans to stay competitive by providing engaging gameplay, using relatively new (AR) technology, and creating an “easy entry point for people who want to understand Blockchain/DAG and cryptocurrencies in a risk free environment”.

Solution Advantage: Compared to other AR-focused blockchain mobile games, Worldopoly does not clearly communicate the selling proposition of the platform and what makes it competitive compared to similar projects.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for disruption in the mobile gaming sector is questionable. The majority of popular games do not utilize AR, and fewer use cryptocurrency. The most disruptive aspect of the platform is the use of cryptocurrency, which of course would apply to any other blockchain-based game. Using innovative technology, especially in the mobile gaming sector does not necessarily indicate success. One of the most important factors is gameplay, which is not thoroughly described in the whitepaper.

Long-Term Vision: The organization aims to develop a game that incorporates two emerging technologies: blockchain and AR. The platform aims to create an ecosystem that will introduce users to cryptocurrency. The scope of the project is fairly limited.

 

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..."]).

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Worldopoly is based in Switzerland. It is stated in the roadmap that in 2016, the platform started to gain interest from early investors. However, specific fiscal values are not provided in the document. There are 13 individuals listed as core team members in the whitepaper and on the Worldopoly website (although it is stated Worldopoly is comprised of a “highly qualified team of 25 specialists”).

Team Assembly and Commitment: With the exception of the CTO, the rest of the C-level executives are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects. The extent of their involvement is unclear due to the lack of information provided in their LinkedIn profiles. The roles of each individual are clearly described with respect to Worldopoly, however. When assessing the rest of the core team, there are three individuals with a technical position on the team.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Team members include their LinkedIn profile, profile pictures, and short bio descriptions which can be found through the Worldopoly website. Some team members do not include Worldopoly on their profile (the Computer Vision/Deep Learning Engineer, for example). Neither the full-stack nor the front-end developers have information provided in their LinkedIn profiles that would indicate extensive experience with blockchain technology. The CTO has prior experience as a web and oracle developer.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Prior professional experience, particularly from individuals with a technical role are only somewhat correlated to the project. There is a lack of individuals on the team that would be considered experts in AI, AR, or blockchain.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): It would be expected that the proportion of individuals with a technical role would be higher considering the technical focus of the developmental roadmap. At the current stage of team development, there is a lack of individuals with expertise that aligns with the project, particularly with blockchain development.

Strategic Partnerships: Neither strategic partnerships nor early adopters are specifically discussed in the whitepaper.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.7
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: WPT tokens are used as an in-game currency and are essential to the platform.

Token Economy: The total number of WPT tokens is 200 million. Details of the token economy are lacking. Fee structure is not specifically discussed. There is some discussion on new advertising channels made available with the use of AR.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is explicitly stated in the whitepaper that “the semi-decentralized solution will, in time, be replaced by a decentralized model as soon as a solution to the stated problems is found”. The platform plans to address scalability and transaction speed by using off-chain transactions. However, the details of this system is not adequately described in the document.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: Unspecified
Hard cap: $10MM USD

It is stated that if the funding goals of the ICO are not reached, “the remaining WPT will be temporarily frozen” and that Worldopoly reserves the right to “use these tokens in the future strictly [only with purpose] to cover possible potential needs of the game (for example, to settle the price in case of increased demand).”

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
* 30% IT Development
* 40% Marketing and Promotion
* 15% Acquisitions and Partnerships
* 10% Operating and administrative expenses
* 5% Legal expenses

There is no further information provided regarding the use of proceeds.

Token Allocation: The allocation of tokens is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
* 75% ICO
* 15% Founders and Team
* 5% Marketing & Bonuses
* 5% Reserved funding (trust)

Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unknown whether unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper begins with a brief market overview with respect to the gaming market.

The unique features of the platform are listed in the document and are as follows:
* We launch in an environment where AR is being actively promoted by Apple and Google.
* We are pioneers in the field of meaningful implementation of Blockchain / DAG into a game.
* On top of this technological novelties, Worldopoly also provides a genuinely interesting gaming experience.

There is brief discussion regarding some of the technical considerations of the platform. Blockchain infrastructure is discussed vaguely and it is stated that Ethereum was chosen as the base platform due to its “customization possibilities and the constant improvements of the computing platform itself”. Some aspects are not discussed or with minimal detail (governance structure, legal considerations, dependencies).

Readability: Overall, the document is fairly easy to read. However, the gameplay could be presented with more clarity.

Transparency: There are some issues with the platform (and underlying technology) that are discussed in the whitepaper somewhat transparently. For example, two issues with implementation (due to the use of blockchain technology) are scalability and transaction speed. Worldopoly plans to address these issues by allocating a portion of the transactions to take place off-chain. However, details of the off-chain solution are not discussed in detail. Furthermore, Worldopoly plans to avoid blockchain-related irreversibility issues by use of “safety measures to prevent such scenarios and will expand them based on player feedback”. However, details of these safety measures are absent. The GitHub repository does not contain any meaningful content.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model is discussed fairly briefly.

It is stated that the features of the platform will align with the following principles:
* preventing “pay2win aversion” by casual gamers
* game mechanics that keep the players involved
* a clear and rewarding progression system
* the inclusion of a social component

The possibility of new advertising channels are also discussed briefly in the document. It is stated that users will be able to place ads on player-owned objects. Worldopoly plans to purchase tokens from the market “from time to time” to increase scarcity, however specific details are not provided. Fee structure is also not specifically outlined. Financial projections are also included in the document. Profitability criteria is discussed, along with investment metrics (NPV, IRR, payback period).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Discussion of technical aspects of the platform lacks detail. The underlying technology will utilize the Google Maps API. Ethereum and ByteBall will be supported for the platform but the document does not contain specific technical content which evaluates and compares various blockchain solutions. It is simply stated that Ethereum was chosen since the organization has seen “how it has improved since its inception” and ByteBall was chosen since “the commission for making a transaction is cheaper” compared to Ethereum. AI will be used for shape and building recognition, but further details are not provided.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a notable lack of content addressing legal considerations of the platform and the token sale. There is a very short disclaimer towards the end of the document which spans three sentences. It is stated that the “content is not legally binding for the initiating company.”

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.

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

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

Product

Differentiation: The platform does little to differentiate itself from similar AR-focused blockchain games. Instead, the document contains a section which outlines the advantages of the platform in a somewhat vague manner. The main advantages of Worldopoly (as outlined in the whitepaper) are the engaging gameplay, utilization of AR, and the ability to introduce people to cryptocurrencies. These advantages are not unique to Worldopoly and apply to nearly all AR-focused blockchain games. Whether the game will have “engaging gameplay” is still unknown.

Readiness: A video demonstration of of the game (with very limited functionality) is available on the Worldopoly website. The Worldopoly GitHub page can be found which contains a single repository with only a README file (the entirety of the text is copied from the introductory paragraph of the whitepaper).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The whitepaper provides a funding-based development plan. The development plan lacks detail and does not provide quantitative information, other than the amount of funds for each funding level. For example, the first developmental stage is reached at 1000 ETH, where the “building of [the] Worldopoly economic system” and “finalization of game visual effects” will take place. The developmental roadmap contains milestones that are sufficiently detailed. Specific examples of feature implementations are discussed. For example, in September 2018, buildings (within the game) will have an effect on the value of other buildings in their area: “a brothel generates more money than a kiosk but, could increase the crime rate in the area, and as such, consequently depreciate the value of all the other buildings in the neighbourhood”. The majority of the milestones are focused on technical achievements/developments as opposed to business-related goals.

Current Position within Roadmap: The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2013 to 2020. There are approximately 15 milestones presented, with 4 milestones achieved at the time of writing this review. Notable milestones already achieved include the development of the game engine “from scratch” in 2014 and the composition of the financial model and the business plan in 2017. It is stated that by August 2018, the beta version of the mobile application will be released. Integration of AI for shape and building recognition will also be tested during this time. Based off of the lack of publicly available content on GitHub and the seemingly rudimentary video demonstration of the product, a beta release of the application in August 2018 is a fairly ambitious goal. The stable release of the mobile application is set for release in October/November 2018.

Feasiblity: Worldopoly aims to combine AR with blockchain and mobile gaming (as well as AI). The plan to have a stable release of the product available on the AppStore and PlayStore by October 2018 is fairly ambitious. Current developmental efforts are mostly unknown due to the lack of updates from the developers and the lack of publicly available content on GitHub.

Blockchain Innovation: The selection of blockchain solutions are included in the whitepaper but the level of detail provided is quite low. Two blockchain platforms are supported: Ethereum and ByteBall. It is stated that Ethereum was chosen due to “how it has improved since its inception”. On the other hand, ByteBall was also considered since “the commission for making a transaction is cheaper than Ethereum”. The justification for using either platform is not described with great detail. Tokens on one platform are redeemable on the other on a one-to-one basis.

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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

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

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
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:
2.0

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for Worldopoly are those that would be interested in mobile gaming. When compared to particular genres of gaming such as MMORRPG, Worldopoly states that RTS has “wider mainstream appeal”. In the section of the whitepaper that covers market research, it is stated mobile gaming has a marketshare of over 40% in the gaming industry.

Market Penetration Potential: Mobile gaming is a competitive sector. Penetration of this market requires acquiring users that are accustomed to playing fairly well established games that have had lots of time for development, polish, and refinement of gameplay. Worldopoly aims to develop an ecosystem, of which the gameplay has not yet been proven to be successful. Simply combining AR and blockchain with mobile gaming is not enough to succeed in this market and the video demonstration of the product does not indicate that the game has engaging gameplay.

Direct Competition: The whitepaper addresses other blockchain-based games: Lordmancer II, Privateers Life, and Prospectors. The whitepaper primarily uses direct competitors to assess the feasibility and demand for blockchain-based games rather than a thorough and specific comparison between Worldopoly and its competitors. For example, it is stated that the “success of CryptoKitties, while not relevant for the RTS genre, shows that people are willing to invest in games with build in cryptocurrencies” However, some general advantages of the platform are listed. To summarize, compared to most other blockchain-related gaming platform, Worldopoly plans to stay competitive by providing engaging gameplay, using relatively new (AR) technology, and creating an “easy entry point for people who want to understand Blockchain/DAG and cryptocurrencies in a risk free environment”.

Solution Advantage: Compared to other AR-focused blockchain mobile games, Worldopoly does not clearly communicate the selling proposition of the platform and what makes it competitive compared to similar projects.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for disruption in the mobile gaming sector is questionable. The majority of popular games do not utilize AR, and fewer use cryptocurrency. The most disruptive aspect of the platform is the use of cryptocurrency, which of course would apply to any other blockchain-based game. Using innovative technology, especially in the mobile gaming sector does not necessarily indicate success. One of the most important factors is gameplay, which is not thoroughly described in the whitepaper.

Long-Term Vision: The organization aims to develop a game that incorporates two emerging technologies: blockchain and AR. The platform aims to create an ecosystem that will introduce users to cryptocurrency. The scope of the project is fairly limited.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
Direct Competition

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.
Market Score:
1.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Worldopoly is based in Switzerland. It is stated in the roadmap that in 2016, the platform started to gain interest from early investors. However, specific fiscal values are not provided in the document. There are 13 individuals listed as core team members in the whitepaper and on the Worldopoly website (although it is stated Worldopoly is comprised of a “highly qualified team of 25 specialists”).

Team Assembly and Commitment: With the exception of the CTO, the rest of the C-level executives are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects. The extent of their involvement is unclear due to the lack of information provided in their LinkedIn profiles. The roles of each individual are clearly described with respect to Worldopoly, however. When assessing the rest of the core team, there are three individuals with a technical position on the team.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Team members include their LinkedIn profile, profile pictures, and short bio descriptions which can be found through the Worldopoly website. Some team members do not include Worldopoly on their profile (the Computer Vision/Deep Learning Engineer, for example). Neither the full-stack nor the front-end developers have information provided in their LinkedIn profiles that would indicate extensive experience with blockchain technology. The CTO has prior experience as a web and oracle developer.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Prior professional experience, particularly from individuals with a technical role are only somewhat correlated to the project. There is a lack of individuals on the team that would be considered experts in AI, AR, or blockchain.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): It would be expected that the proportion of individuals with a technical role would be higher considering the technical focus of the developmental roadmap. At the current stage of team development, there is a lack of individuals with expertise that aligns with the project, particularly with blockchain development.

Strategic Partnerships: Neither strategic partnerships nor early adopters are specifically discussed in the whitepaper.

 

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..."]).

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
2.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: WPT tokens are used as an in-game currency and are essential to the platform.

Token Economy: The total number of WPT tokens is 200 million. Details of the token economy are lacking. Fee structure is not specifically discussed. There is some discussion on new advertising channels made available with the use of AR.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is explicitly stated in the whitepaper that “the semi-decentralized solution will, in time, be replaced by a decentralized model as soon as a solution to the stated problems is found”. The platform plans to address scalability and transaction speed by using off-chain transactions. However, the details of this system is not adequately described in the document.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: Unspecified
Hard cap: $10MM USD

It is stated that if the funding goals of the ICO are not reached, “the remaining WPT will be temporarily frozen” and that Worldopoly reserves the right to “use these tokens in the future strictly [only with purpose] to cover possible potential needs of the game (for example, to settle the price in case of increased demand).”

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
* 30% IT Development
* 40% Marketing and Promotion
* 15% Acquisitions and Partnerships
* 10% Operating and administrative expenses
* 5% Legal expenses

There is no further information provided regarding the use of proceeds.

Token Allocation: The allocation of tokens is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
* 75% ICO
* 15% Founders and Team
* 5% Marketing & Bonuses
* 5% Reserved funding (trust)

Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unknown whether unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
2.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website