Zero Carbon Project

A Zero Carbon Market that beats renewable energy and fossil fuels on price and customers earn Energis token rewards as a catalyst for change.

About Zero Carbon Project

Zero Carbon Project is an initiative that aims increase the rate of reduction of carbon emission by giving access to cheaper energy contracts compared to those from renewable and fossil fuel sources. These contracts are derived from carbon emissions that have been offset by international carbon credits. Energis tokens (NRG) are used to pay transaction fees for the marketplace, 70% of which are distributed as a rewards system to consumers.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.7
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Business and token models are well-developed and clearly presented.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

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

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

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The company website includes multiple documents: the whitepaper, a document discussing the risks associated with the platform and token sale, the terms and conditions of the token sale, and the privacy policy of the website. Links to the organization’s GitHub page is included, which contains token smart contracts. The functionality of the smart contracts is also included in the document. Marketing and growth strategies are adequately discussed.

Readability: The document takes time to read but does not seem deliberately obfuscated.

Transparency: The current stage of development is somewhat ambiguous. For instance, it is stated that “twelve energy suppliers are already signed up for the Zero Carbon Project”. However, the suppliers are not specifically listed. Limitations of the platform (scalability, decentralization) are addressed. Token smart contracts can be found on the organization’s GitHub page.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Growth strategies are specifically discussed. It is stated that the project is initially planned to launch in the UK in 2018. Other competitive electricity markets include that the project aims to roll-out to include: Texas, the east coast of the United States, Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and other EU markets. Very brief details are provided for the marketing strategy as the organization initially plans to target the crypto-community via “word-of-mouth referrals, supported by the nomination scheme bonus”. The organization plans to reach a break-even point within four years at 100,000 households (or the equivalent mix of households and businesses). The token model is adequately discussed with a thorough discussion on the fee structure and token mechanics.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Token smart contracts are publicly available and are listed as follows:
– Energis token contract
– Token sale: private pre-sale
– Token sale: public pre-sale
– Token sale: main crowd sale
– Token sale: reserve token sale
– Vesting contract with 25% vested on 1-Sep-18 and every six months thereafter
– Ether payments contract with multi-sig
– Transaction fees
– Reward pool
– Distribute rewards
– Energis payments contract

Further discussion is included that gives more details as to the function of the smart contracts.

The software architecture of the market is not described with great detail. It is stated that “the market software has been developed in the UK for households to purchase energy for their homes through the comparison site”. However, in the disclaimer section of the whitepaper, it is stated that “The Zero Carbon Market will be open source in nature which could allow anyone to replicate, modify or enhance the technology which underlies the Zero Carbon Market”. Thus, information regarding critical technical components of the platform are not included.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Three documents are included through the website which outlines the risks associated with the platform and the token sale, the terms and conditions of the token sale, and the privacy policy of the organization. Additionally, disclaimers and notices are included in the whitepaper. Overall, the legal review and risk assessment provided by the organization is fairly comprehensive. Furthermore, the organization gives the names and contact information of the company’s legal advisors.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.5
Product
Differentiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: The platform differentiates itself from other projects by developing a solution that will be able to be easily adopted. It does not require major infrastructural or regulatory development in order for the platform to function. When compared to most other clean energy focused blockchain projects, the feasibility of the product is favorable.

Readiness: It is stated the organization has been “actively building the Zero Carbon Market over the last year” which includes designing the Energis smart contracts and registering energy suppliers in the UK and developing the relevant software. It is also stated that the platform is ready to launch in the UK in October 2018 followed by a global roll-out in 2019. There are 12 energy suppliers currently signed up for the Zero Carbon Project (as of March 2018). With regards to content that is publicly available, the GitHub page is limited to only token smart contracts.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

September 2018
– Deploy Energis smart contracts
October 2018
– List Energis token on third party distributed crypto-exchange
– Launch UK Zero Carbon Market
Q4 2018
– Register Australian energy suppliers
– Register 1,000 household energy consumers, equivalent to 5,500,000 kWh (5.5 GWh)
– Complete zero carbon software for Australian requirements
Q1 2019
– Launch Australian Zero Carbon Market
– Complete zero carbon software requirements for Germany, Texas and US East Coast
– Register energy suppliers in Germany, Texas and US East Coast
– Total registered household consumers of 3,000 (16.5 GWh)
2019
– Launch Zero Carbon Market in Germany, Texas and US East Coast
– Launch Zero Carbon Markets in France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Canada, Japan and NZ
– Total registered household consumers of 30,000 (165 GWh or USD1.65 million in transaction fees) or equivalent registered business consumers (by fees)

The roadmap outlines major milestones that are based on both technological as well as business developments. Specific details are included and there is an adequate level of detail provided.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the milestones reached with respect to the Zero Carbon Project (that are separate from Beond) are unclear. The software for the marketplace seems as though it was already developed through Beond, before the Zero Carbon Project began. Suppliers that have supposedly signed up for the project are not specified.

Feasiblity: The vision of the project is very ambitious: the organization aims to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2032. With respect to the roadmap, the goals are fairly optimistic, but reasonable. Incremental increases in business development are reflected in the milestones presented in the roadmap.

Blockchain Innovation: The utilization of blockchain technology does not extend past the circulation of tokens. As such, the platform does not provide much value to other projects with respect to blockchain technology.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

3.5
Market
Target User Base

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.

Market

Target User Base: The platform aims to target both businesses and individuals and allows for the ability to switch energy providers. It is stated in the whitepaper that the project is “targeting the total global market for energy consumption, including all households, SMEs, industrial enterprises, commercial and public-sector energy consumers”. Thus, the target user base of the platform has a wide reach.

Market Penetration Potential: The whitepaper emphasizes that the platform aims to leverage carbon credits in order to reduce the cost of electricity relative to renewable and fossil fuel sources. Then towards the end of the document, there is a thorough assessment on the projected increase in electricity demand (implying that the demand for the marketplace will increase as a result). Suppliers can gain new customers by using the platform and consumers can receive tokenized rewards for interacting with the marketplace. Thus, a good strategy is necessary to ensure that the platforms gains adoption.

Direct Competition: The platform specifically outlines its direct (blockchain-enabled) competition:
– Power Ledger
– WePower
– Energimine
– Grid+
– Electrify
– Restart Energy

Additionally, the platform competes with carbon credit exchanges such as CTX.

Solution Advantage: There is thorough discussion presented with respect to how the platform differentiates itself from similar projects such as Power Ledger and WePower. In addition to developing the Market, which will create a competitive landscape which will lead to cost savings for consumers, the platform will utilize Energis tokens to further incentivize users to participate.

With respect to Power Ledger, the Zero Carbon Project differs with their respective target demographics. It is stated that “peer-to-peer markets could take several years to provide cheaper prices” compared to electricity sourced centrally across the Zero Carbon Markets due to the fact that the solution does not require hardware innovations or regulatory restructuring.

Compared to WePower, the platform is also advantageous in the sense that it does not depend on the development of new clean energy infrastructure in order to function.

Overall, the advantage of the solution is that it can have “an immediate impact and scale quickly”.

Blockchain Disruption: The main function of the platform is seemingly possible without the introduction of cryptocurrency. Tokens are used to pay transaction fees and to reward consumers. As stated in the whitepaper, Energis tokens provide an additional incentive to switch energy providers as opposed to being a core aspect of the platform. As such, the level of disruption in this sector brought by the introduction of blockchain technology in fairly weak.

Long-Term Vision: The impression of the information presented in the whitepaper suggests that the renewable energy is, at the present time, not economically feasible for mass adoption. However, the organization aims to develop a solution that reduces our collective carbon footprint. It is stated that “in order to make a faster impact on global carbon emissions, energy consumers need to be attracted away from fossil fuels to zero carbon energy, by offering a lower price”. The long term vision of the organization is to eliminate carbon emissions by 2032.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.2
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
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: Zero Carbon Project Pty Ltd (ABN 84625590758) is a subsidiary of Beond, a carbon consultancy in London which services over 600 energy consumers. Beond has worked with the following clients and have included case studies and testimonials in the whitepaper:

– Knight Frank (56,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– Capita (59,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– Berendsen (33,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– The Arts Council (23,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– Salford City Council (14,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 8 core team members listed on the company website. All but one individual (Ethereum smart contract advisor & developer) provide links to their LinkedIn profiles. It is stated that 4 development staff will be “recruited to provide this product and software development” along with 10 operational staff after receiving funding from the token sale.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Most individuals show involvement with the Zero Carbon Project on their LinkedIn page. The markets director, financial advisor, and the contract Ethereum developer to not show affiliation with the project and are concurrently involved with other organizations.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The team has experience in developing “competition enhancing techniques for the last 15 years”, such as online reverse auctions, market transparency, and like-for-like comparisons. Thus the development of the marketplace aligns with the current skill set of the team. The sector that the project aims to target aligns with the business operations of Zero Carbon Project’s subsidiary, Beond. However, with respect to blockchain technology, there is a lack of individuals on the team that have had extensive experience working on blockchain-related projects.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is one individual that has experience with blockchain development. However, this individual seems to be contracted through a consulting agency as opposed to working with the team full-time. The individual performed an audit of the smart contracts, however the role of this individual with respect to the project is unclear. As such, there is a significant lack of developers on the team that have blockchain-related experience. Additionally, there is only one other individual with a technical role (software manager and developer). Overall the skill set of the team is fairly skewed toward business development and finance.

Strategic Partnerships: Partnerships listed on the website are listed as follows:
– Amazix (Crypto-community management and engagement firm)
– Renowned & Co (Recent spun-off from Amazix to provide a focused marketing consultancy)
– Lunalabs (Recently spun-off from Amazix. Provides both technical delivery and ICO consultancy services)
– Bok Consulting (Ethereum smart contract developers and auditors)
– Beond (European energy and carbon consultancy business.)

Notable launch partners/partnerships are absent

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.5
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The token provides value to different parties through two different markets, one for enterprise and one for household consumers. Energis tokens are provided as a reward mechanism to household consumers, which can then be sold on exchanges and then used to pay transaction fees. Businesses will be able to access a reverse auction platform where suppliers are able to bid for a contracts.

Token Economy: It is stated that “The Total Token Supply will initially be fixed, however it may increase at a later date”. Energis tokens are used to pay transaction fees for the Market. The expected value of Energis tokens are expected to increase as the number of contracts deployed on the Market increases (driving demand for the Market with a fixed token supply). Transaction fee mechanisms are discussed with specific details. The platform will service household users as well as businesses. Household consumers will be offered the ability to view zero carbon energy contracts on a comparison platform whereas businesses will be able to access a reverse auction platform which allows energy suppliers to bid for contracts.

System Decentralization (besides token): The total supply is supposedly fixed, but can be changed at a later time. The mechanics and governance structure that dictate the change in token supply is not outlined. With respect to the marketplace, the solution will utilize off-chain components (reverse auction) but the organization plans implement a more decentralized solution when scaling solutions (Raiden and Plasma) are ready.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The soft cap of the main sale is not specified. The hard cap of the main sale will be $12MM USD along with any unsold pre-sale tokens (sold at $0.15 USD/token).

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 45% – Marketing – advertising – sponsorship – public – relations – events – sales – materials – travel – three senior resources (marketing activities) 24% – Operations – providing customer service to the energy suppliers and energy consumer community – hire three regional operations managers – hire ten operational staff 16% – Taxes 15% – Development – modifying the software – assessing regulatory requirements – ongoing costs associated with the development and roll out of new services and features of the Zero Carbon Markets – develop a ‘trustless’ smart contract infrastructure Further discussion is included which gives additional detail with regards to the funding allocation.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 15% – will be retained by Beond and will vest as set out below 2.0% – will be distributed to team members and partner advisors 2.4% – will be distributed for bounties and bonuses 51.4% – will be distributed as part of the token sale 30% – will be retained in the reward pool to be distributed as rewards for consumption of zero carbon energy Vesting periods for tokens owned by Beond are clearly outlined (tokens will be released in equal batches of 25% or 9 million tokens every six months thereafter).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The company website includes multiple documents: the whitepaper, a document discussing the risks associated with the platform and token sale, the terms and conditions of the token sale, and the privacy policy of the website. Links to the organization’s GitHub page is included, which contains token smart contracts. The functionality of the smart contracts is also included in the document. Marketing and growth strategies are adequately discussed.

Readability: The document takes time to read but does not seem deliberately obfuscated.

Transparency: The current stage of development is somewhat ambiguous. For instance, it is stated that “twelve energy suppliers are already signed up for the Zero Carbon Project”. However, the suppliers are not specifically listed. Limitations of the platform (scalability, decentralization) are addressed. Token smart contracts can be found on the organization’s GitHub page.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Growth strategies are specifically discussed. It is stated that the project is initially planned to launch in the UK in 2018. Other competitive electricity markets include that the project aims to roll-out to include: Texas, the east coast of the United States, Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and other EU markets. Very brief details are provided for the marketing strategy as the organization initially plans to target the crypto-community via “word-of-mouth referrals, supported by the nomination scheme bonus”. The organization plans to reach a break-even point within four years at 100,000 households (or the equivalent mix of households and businesses). The token model is adequately discussed with a thorough discussion on the fee structure and token mechanics.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Token smart contracts are publicly available and are listed as follows:
– Energis token contract
– Token sale: private pre-sale
– Token sale: public pre-sale
– Token sale: main crowd sale
– Token sale: reserve token sale
– Vesting contract with 25% vested on 1-Sep-18 and every six months thereafter
– Ether payments contract with multi-sig
– Transaction fees
– Reward pool
– Distribute rewards
– Energis payments contract

Further discussion is included that gives more details as to the function of the smart contracts.

The software architecture of the market is not described with great detail. It is stated that “the market software has been developed in the UK for households to purchase energy for their homes through the comparison site”. However, in the disclaimer section of the whitepaper, it is stated that “The Zero Carbon Market will be open source in nature which could allow anyone to replicate, modify or enhance the technology which underlies the Zero Carbon Market”. Thus, information regarding critical technical components of the platform are not included.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Three documents are included through the website which outlines the risks associated with the platform and the token sale, the terms and conditions of the token sale, and the privacy policy of the organization. Additionally, disclaimers and notices are included in the whitepaper. Overall, the legal review and risk assessment provided by the organization is fairly comprehensive. Furthermore, the organization gives the names and contact information of the company’s legal advisors.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Business and token models are well-developed and clearly presented.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.
Documentation Score:
3.7

Product

Differentiation: The platform differentiates itself from other projects by developing a solution that will be able to be easily adopted. It does not require major infrastructural or regulatory development in order for the platform to function. When compared to most other clean energy focused blockchain projects, the feasibility of the product is favorable.

Readiness: It is stated the organization has been “actively building the Zero Carbon Market over the last year” which includes designing the Energis smart contracts and registering energy suppliers in the UK and developing the relevant software. It is also stated that the platform is ready to launch in the UK in October 2018 followed by a global roll-out in 2019. There are 12 energy suppliers currently signed up for the Zero Carbon Project (as of March 2018). With regards to content that is publicly available, the GitHub page is limited to only token smart contracts.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

September 2018
– Deploy Energis smart contracts
October 2018
– List Energis token on third party distributed crypto-exchange
– Launch UK Zero Carbon Market
Q4 2018
– Register Australian energy suppliers
– Register 1,000 household energy consumers, equivalent to 5,500,000 kWh (5.5 GWh)
– Complete zero carbon software for Australian requirements
Q1 2019
– Launch Australian Zero Carbon Market
– Complete zero carbon software requirements for Germany, Texas and US East Coast
– Register energy suppliers in Germany, Texas and US East Coast
– Total registered household consumers of 3,000 (16.5 GWh)
2019
– Launch Zero Carbon Market in Germany, Texas and US East Coast
– Launch Zero Carbon Markets in France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Canada, Japan and NZ
– Total registered household consumers of 30,000 (165 GWh or USD1.65 million in transaction fees) or equivalent registered business consumers (by fees)

The roadmap outlines major milestones that are based on both technological as well as business developments. Specific details are included and there is an adequate level of detail provided.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the milestones reached with respect to the Zero Carbon Project (that are separate from Beond) are unclear. The software for the marketplace seems as though it was already developed through Beond, before the Zero Carbon Project began. Suppliers that have supposedly signed up for the project are not specified.

Feasiblity: The vision of the project is very ambitious: the organization aims to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2032. With respect to the roadmap, the goals are fairly optimistic, but reasonable. Incremental increases in business development are reflected in the milestones presented in the roadmap.

Blockchain Innovation: The utilization of blockchain technology does not extend past the circulation of tokens. As such, the platform does not provide much value to other projects with respect to blockchain technology.

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.5

Market

Target User Base: The platform aims to target both businesses and individuals and allows for the ability to switch energy providers. It is stated in the whitepaper that the project is “targeting the total global market for energy consumption, including all households, SMEs, industrial enterprises, commercial and public-sector energy consumers”. Thus, the target user base of the platform has a wide reach.

Market Penetration Potential: The whitepaper emphasizes that the platform aims to leverage carbon credits in order to reduce the cost of electricity relative to renewable and fossil fuel sources. Then towards the end of the document, there is a thorough assessment on the projected increase in electricity demand (implying that the demand for the marketplace will increase as a result). Suppliers can gain new customers by using the platform and consumers can receive tokenized rewards for interacting with the marketplace. Thus, a good strategy is necessary to ensure that the platforms gains adoption.

Direct Competition: The platform specifically outlines its direct (blockchain-enabled) competition:
– Power Ledger
– WePower
– Energimine
– Grid+
– Electrify
– Restart Energy

Additionally, the platform competes with carbon credit exchanges such as CTX.

Solution Advantage: There is thorough discussion presented with respect to how the platform differentiates itself from similar projects such as Power Ledger and WePower. In addition to developing the Market, which will create a competitive landscape which will lead to cost savings for consumers, the platform will utilize Energis tokens to further incentivize users to participate.

With respect to Power Ledger, the Zero Carbon Project differs with their respective target demographics. It is stated that “peer-to-peer markets could take several years to provide cheaper prices” compared to electricity sourced centrally across the Zero Carbon Markets due to the fact that the solution does not require hardware innovations or regulatory restructuring.

Compared to WePower, the platform is also advantageous in the sense that it does not depend on the development of new clean energy infrastructure in order to function.

Overall, the advantage of the solution is that it can have “an immediate impact and scale quickly”.

Blockchain Disruption: The main function of the platform is seemingly possible without the introduction of cryptocurrency. Tokens are used to pay transaction fees and to reward consumers. As stated in the whitepaper, Energis tokens provide an additional incentive to switch energy providers as opposed to being a core aspect of the platform. As such, the level of disruption in this sector brought by the introduction of blockchain technology in fairly weak.

Long-Term Vision: The impression of the information presented in the whitepaper suggests that the renewable energy is, at the present time, not economically feasible for mass adoption. However, the organization aims to develop a solution that reduces our collective carbon footprint. It is stated that “in order to make a faster impact on global carbon emissions, energy consumers need to be attracted away from fossil fuels to zero carbon energy, by offering a lower price”. The long term vision of the organization is to eliminate carbon emissions by 2032.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.
Market Score:
3.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Zero Carbon Project Pty Ltd (ABN 84625590758) is a subsidiary of Beond, a carbon consultancy in London which services over 600 energy consumers. Beond has worked with the following clients and have included case studies and testimonials in the whitepaper:

– Knight Frank (56,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– Capita (59,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– Berendsen (33,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– The Arts Council (23,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)
– Salford City Council (14,000 tonnes CO2 avoided/annum)

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 8 core team members listed on the company website. All but one individual (Ethereum smart contract advisor & developer) provide links to their LinkedIn profiles. It is stated that 4 development staff will be “recruited to provide this product and software development” along with 10 operational staff after receiving funding from the token sale.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Most individuals show involvement with the Zero Carbon Project on their LinkedIn page. The markets director, financial advisor, and the contract Ethereum developer to not show affiliation with the project and are concurrently involved with other organizations.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The team has experience in developing “competition enhancing techniques for the last 15 years”, such as online reverse auctions, market transparency, and like-for-like comparisons. Thus the development of the marketplace aligns with the current skill set of the team. The sector that the project aims to target aligns with the business operations of Zero Carbon Project’s subsidiary, Beond. However, with respect to blockchain technology, there is a lack of individuals on the team that have had extensive experience working on blockchain-related projects.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is one individual that has experience with blockchain development. However, this individual seems to be contracted through a consulting agency as opposed to working with the team full-time. The individual performed an audit of the smart contracts, however the role of this individual with respect to the project is unclear. As such, there is a significant lack of developers on the team that have blockchain-related experience. Additionally, there is only one other individual with a technical role (software manager and developer). Overall the skill set of the team is fairly skewed toward business development and finance.

Strategic Partnerships: Partnerships listed on the website are listed as follows:
– Amazix (Crypto-community management and engagement firm)
– Renowned & Co (Recent spun-off from Amazix to provide a focused marketing consultancy)
– Lunalabs (Recently spun-off from Amazix. Provides both technical delivery and ICO consultancy services)
– Bok Consulting (Ethereum smart contract developers and auditors)
– Beond (European energy and carbon consultancy business.)

Notable launch partners/partnerships are absent

 

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
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:
2.2

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: The token provides value to different parties through two different markets, one for enterprise and one for household consumers. Energis tokens are provided as a reward mechanism to household consumers, which can then be sold on exchanges and then used to pay transaction fees. Businesses will be able to access a reverse auction platform where suppliers are able to bid for a contracts.

Token Economy: It is stated that “The Total Token Supply will initially be fixed, however it may increase at a later date”. Energis tokens are used to pay transaction fees for the Market. The expected value of Energis tokens are expected to increase as the number of contracts deployed on the Market increases (driving demand for the Market with a fixed token supply). Transaction fee mechanisms are discussed with specific details. The platform will service household users as well as businesses. Household consumers will be offered the ability to view zero carbon energy contracts on a comparison platform whereas businesses will be able to access a reverse auction platform which allows energy suppliers to bid for contracts.

System Decentralization (besides token): The total supply is supposedly fixed, but can be changed at a later time. The mechanics and governance structure that dictate the change in token supply is not outlined. With respect to the marketplace, the solution will utilize off-chain components (reverse auction) but the organization plans implement a more decentralized solution when scaling solutions (Raiden and Plasma) are ready.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The soft cap of the main sale is not specified. The hard cap of the main sale will be $12MM USD along with any unsold pre-sale tokens (sold at $0.15 USD/token).

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 45% – Marketing – advertising – sponsorship – public – relations – events – sales – materials – travel – three senior resources (marketing activities) 24% – Operations – providing customer service to the energy suppliers and energy consumer community – hire three regional operations managers – hire ten operational staff 16% – Taxes 15% – Development – modifying the software – assessing regulatory requirements – ongoing costs associated with the development and roll out of new services and features of the Zero Carbon Markets – develop a ‘trustless’ smart contract infrastructure Further discussion is included which gives additional detail with regards to the funding allocation.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 15% – will be retained by Beond and will vest as set out below 2.0% – will be distributed to team members and partner advisors 2.4% – will be distributed for bounties and bonuses 51.4% – will be distributed as part of the token sale 30% – will be retained in the reward pool to be distributed as rewards for consumption of zero carbon energy Vesting periods for tokens owned by Beond are clearly outlined (tokens will be released in equal batches of 25% or 9 million tokens every six months thereafter).

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Token Economics Score:
3.5

Use this code to share the ratings on your website