ZetoChain

Pioneering a scalable, global food-safety supply chain powered by Blockchain.

About ZetoChain

Zeto aims to develop ZetoChain, a blockchain-enabled IoT solution that allows temperature to be recorded and stored on the blockchain. ZetoLabels are placed on products and are detected by a monitoring system that alerts users of issues. The hardware and software solution allows individuals to easily comply with food safety standards, optimize operating efficiency, and protect brand reputation. Users that use ZETO tokens receive a significant discount to products/services provided by Zeto.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document primarily focuses on discussing the justification for the platform and business-related details. Technical details and legal content is lacking. There is some discussion regarding competitors (both blockchain and non-blockchain related competitors) and brief market research.

Readability: The document is quite simple to read.

Transparency: Transparency is questionable. The company GitHub page is provided in the ZeroChain website, but there is no distinction between repositories used for the developments of the parent company, Zeto, and the project at hand (ZetoChain). Additionally, vague references to partnerships and clients are mentioned throughout the document without specific details. Limitations of the platform and developmental challenges are not discussed.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model consists of two components: hardware sales and software license fees. Key benefits of the solution are discussed and include (but are not limited to):
– Early detection of issues reduces product loss and improves productivity
– Immutable records ensures protection against litigation
– Shortens time to identify products in a recall event
– Builds and protects brand reputation

A brief overview of the global retail market is also included. Token use cases are also included as well as a discussion on the parties involved with the token economy. However, details regarding business development are lacking.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The technological discussion lacks detail. Technical aspects of the platform are discussed primarily on a logistical level. Most of the content provided for technology plan is presented with figures that are not accompanied with a thorough discussion. Most of the content for the discussion regarding software of the platform are mock-up pictures mobile applications.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The document lacks discussion regarding the legal considerations of the token sale.

 

Documentation Market

Product

1.8
Product
Differentiation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: The platform addresses blockchain-focused competitors and states that ZetoChain will be able to leverage existing clients which “include major retailers who are key influencers in the eco-system”. However, specific details are not included. The information presented in the whitepaper emphasizes the potential to leverage existing business relations through Zeto as opposed to presenting compelling technology.

Readiness: The platform is still primarily an idea. A demonstration or proof-of-concept for the software that will be sold to clients is not available. Additionally, specific details with regards to the hardware that will be developed is not thoroughly discussed.

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

March 14th, 2018
– Launch ICO Website
April 30th, 2018
– Launch ICO Pre-Sale
June 1st, 2018
– Smart Contracts Released
July 9th, 2018
– Token Sale
August 1st 2018
– Exchange Listing
Oct 1st, 2018
– Service Upgrade
Nov 1st, 2018
– Mobile APIs
Dec 1st, 2018
– Mobile Application Released
Feb 1st, 2019
– Customer Trial
Feb 1st, 2019
– Web UI Updated
March 1st, 2019
– Hardware Available
April 1st, 2019
– Mobile Applications Available
June 1st, 2019
– 1.0 Release

Overall milestones are presented. However, details of some milestones are lacking. For example, the hardware is stated to be available by March 2019. Further details with respect to the developmental resources involved with designing and manufacturing the hardware is not discussed. Furthermore, the hardware itself that is proposed to be built is uncertain. In the whitepaper, there a multiple hardware solutions described (temperature sensor, label printer, label detector). Additionally, a data marketplace is mentioned in the whitepaper, but it is not included in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: Milestones reached thus far include the launch of the website and the launch of the ICO pre-sale. It is not evident that the organization has achieved any notable development milestones, thus it is inferred that the platform is primarily still an idea.

Feasiblity: The release of hardware in March 2019 seems ambitious considering the lack of detail provided in the whitepaper regarding the hardware that is intended to be developed.

Blockchain Innovation: With regards to blockchain technology, the platform is not innovative and does not provide clear value to other blockchain-focused projects from a technological perspective (especially considering that the platform will use proprietary software).

 

Product Company and Team

Market

2.7
Market
Target User Base

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.

Market

Target User Base: Initially, the organization intends to target large European retailers and later “focus on the wider global retail market with an emphasis on the US and emerging economies”. The main target demographic are food retailers.

Market Penetration Potential: If Zeto is able to develop a functional product, the potential for food retailers to adopt the service is moderate. It is unclear from an economical perspective whether the platform will succeed (software license fees and hardware costs are not discussed), but benefits brought forth by the platform are outlined clearly in the whitepaper.

Direct Competition: The competitive landscape is discussed in the whitepaper and lists the following organizations/projects:

– IBM
– Emerson
– Ambrosus
– Arc-Net
– Te-food

Zeto includes both blockchain and non-blockchain related organizations. However a comparison with ZetoChain is not included.

Solution Advantage: It is stated that Zeto currently possesses partnerships with multiple hardware manufacturers that will be able to develop calibrated wireless temperature sensors. The whitepaper plans to leverage existing business relationships through Zeto in order to rapidly increase adoption of ZetoChain.

Blockchain Disruption: The need to use blockchain technology is explicitly discussed in the whitepaper. It is stated that the primary issue with existing systems is the lack of transparency and the fact that the current system is prone to manipulation. With regards to supply-chain in general and with consideration as to how Zeto plans to develop ZetoChain, the potential for disruption is considerable.

Long-Term Vision: The organization plans to deploy a pilot project of ZetoChain with one of Zeto’s existing clients in February 2019. The organization plans to target European retailers before expanding globally.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.0
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).

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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.

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

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

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

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Zeto was founded in 2011 in Ireland and has raised €1.7M in funding. The organization focuses on developing management solutions for operators of refrigeration equipment in the food display and storage sectors.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 14 core team members listed in the ZetoChain whitepaper. Individuals listed are current employees of Zeto (an existing business). It is unclear whether all team members will have a significant role with the ZetoChain project. The roles and responsibilities are with respect to Zeto as opposed to ZetoChain. Thus, the level of commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Information presented on the CEO’s LinkedIn page is limited. There is no information provided that gives further details with regards to the qualifications of the individual or the responsibilities for previous work experiences. Overall, the level of information presented on LinkedIn profiles varies considerably. However all team members include linked to their LinkedIn profiles, along with a short bio description.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most individuals that would be working on the ZeroChain project have prior experience with IoT development and refrigeration equipment solutions due to the nature of Zeto’s business. As a result, the skill set of the team is highly relevant.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Zeto is already an operational business, and as such, The ZetoChain team possesses an adequate number of individuals with experience with business development. There is a lack of individuals that have had extensive experience with blockchain focused projects but there are a considerable number of software engineers.

Strategic Partnerships: The following partnerships are listed on the website: – Nimbus Research Centre/Cork Institute of Technology (Ireland’s Leading Research Centre in Cyber-Physical Systems & Internet of Things) – Prechain Capital (focuses exclusively on startups working on blockchain technology, tokens, and crypto assets) – ICO Watchdog (offers enhanced data to help traders make smarter decisions) The only notable partnership is with Nimbus Research Centre.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

1.7
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized without due consideration of the broader issue.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Specific use cases of ZETO tokens are discussed in the whitepaper. Users that use ZETO tokens for purchases (software licenses, hardware, services, etc) will receive a significant discount (specific details of the discount are not included in the document). ZETO tokens are also used with the platform’s rewards program and is also a means of exchange within the Zeto data marketplace.

Token Economy: There is a section of the whitepaper the specifically addresses the ZETO token economy. Participants of the ecosystem are presented as follows: – Clients: Zeto’s customers (retail businesses,transport companies, product manufacturers etc.) – Staff: Employees of our clients – Customers: Customers of clients (general public) – External Parties: Third party providers of software solutions It is stated that use cases for ZETO are currently being investigated and explored with partners. Thus the token economy of the platform is fully developed.

System Decentralization (besides token): Since the platform intends to sell proprietary software and hardware, the platform is fairly centralized. With regards to data storage, it is stated that the first release of the produce will “use of the services and data stores currently in use at Zeto”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Total supply: 340 million ZETO Soft cap: unspecified Hard cap: unspecified

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 60% – Development 30% – Marketing 10% – Legal/ICO Costs Further details of each allocation are not presented. It is not clear what costs are associated with the development fund. A more thorough breakdown would be beneficial.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 44% – ICO 7.5% – Investors 12% – Pre-sale 34% – Zeto 2.5% – Bounty Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document primarily focuses on discussing the justification for the platform and business-related details. Technical details and legal content is lacking. There is some discussion regarding competitors (both blockchain and non-blockchain related competitors) and brief market research.

Readability: The document is quite simple to read.

Transparency: Transparency is questionable. The company GitHub page is provided in the ZeroChain website, but there is no distinction between repositories used for the developments of the parent company, Zeto, and the project at hand (ZetoChain). Additionally, vague references to partnerships and clients are mentioned throughout the document without specific details. Limitations of the platform and developmental challenges are not discussed.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model consists of two components: hardware sales and software license fees. Key benefits of the solution are discussed and include (but are not limited to):
– Early detection of issues reduces product loss and improves productivity
– Immutable records ensures protection against litigation
– Shortens time to identify products in a recall event
– Builds and protects brand reputation

A brief overview of the global retail market is also included. Token use cases are also included as well as a discussion on the parties involved with the token economy. However, details regarding business development are lacking.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The technological discussion lacks detail. Technical aspects of the platform are discussed primarily on a logistical level. Most of the content provided for technology plan is presented with figures that are not accompanied with a thorough discussion. Most of the content for the discussion regarding software of the platform are mock-up pictures mobile applications.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The document lacks discussion regarding the legal considerations of the token sale.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Documentation Score:
2.3

Product

Differentiation: The platform addresses blockchain-focused competitors and states that ZetoChain will be able to leverage existing clients which “include major retailers who are key influencers in the eco-system”. However, specific details are not included. The information presented in the whitepaper emphasizes the potential to leverage existing business relations through Zeto as opposed to presenting compelling technology.

Readiness: The platform is still primarily an idea. A demonstration or proof-of-concept for the software that will be sold to clients is not available. Additionally, specific details with regards to the hardware that will be developed is not thoroughly discussed.

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

March 14th, 2018
– Launch ICO Website
April 30th, 2018
– Launch ICO Pre-Sale
June 1st, 2018
– Smart Contracts Released
July 9th, 2018
– Token Sale
August 1st 2018
– Exchange Listing
Oct 1st, 2018
– Service Upgrade
Nov 1st, 2018
– Mobile APIs
Dec 1st, 2018
– Mobile Application Released
Feb 1st, 2019
– Customer Trial
Feb 1st, 2019
– Web UI Updated
March 1st, 2019
– Hardware Available
April 1st, 2019
– Mobile Applications Available
June 1st, 2019
– 1.0 Release

Overall milestones are presented. However, details of some milestones are lacking. For example, the hardware is stated to be available by March 2019. Further details with respect to the developmental resources involved with designing and manufacturing the hardware is not discussed. Furthermore, the hardware itself that is proposed to be built is uncertain. In the whitepaper, there a multiple hardware solutions described (temperature sensor, label printer, label detector). Additionally, a data marketplace is mentioned in the whitepaper, but it is not included in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: Milestones reached thus far include the launch of the website and the launch of the ICO pre-sale. It is not evident that the organization has achieved any notable development milestones, thus it is inferred that the platform is primarily still an idea.

Feasiblity: The release of hardware in March 2019 seems ambitious considering the lack of detail provided in the whitepaper regarding the hardware that is intended to be developed.

Blockchain Innovation: With regards to blockchain technology, the platform is not innovative and does not provide clear value to other blockchain-focused projects from a technological perspective (especially considering that the platform will use proprietary software).

 

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
Concreteness of Development Plans

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

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
1.8

Market

Target User Base: Initially, the organization intends to target large European retailers and later “focus on the wider global retail market with an emphasis on the US and emerging economies”. The main target demographic are food retailers.

Market Penetration Potential: If Zeto is able to develop a functional product, the potential for food retailers to adopt the service is moderate. It is unclear from an economical perspective whether the platform will succeed (software license fees and hardware costs are not discussed), but benefits brought forth by the platform are outlined clearly in the whitepaper.

Direct Competition: The competitive landscape is discussed in the whitepaper and lists the following organizations/projects:

– IBM
– Emerson
– Ambrosus
– Arc-Net
– Te-food

Zeto includes both blockchain and non-blockchain related organizations. However a comparison with ZetoChain is not included.

Solution Advantage: It is stated that Zeto currently possesses partnerships with multiple hardware manufacturers that will be able to develop calibrated wireless temperature sensors. The whitepaper plans to leverage existing business relationships through Zeto in order to rapidly increase adoption of ZetoChain.

Blockchain Disruption: The need to use blockchain technology is explicitly discussed in the whitepaper. It is stated that the primary issue with existing systems is the lack of transparency and the fact that the current system is prone to manipulation. With regards to supply-chain in general and with consideration as to how Zeto plans to develop ZetoChain, the potential for disruption is considerable.

Long-Term Vision: The organization plans to deploy a pilot project of ZetoChain with one of Zeto’s existing clients in February 2019. The organization plans to target European retailers before expanding globally.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
2.7

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Zeto was founded in 2011 in Ireland and has raised €1.7M in funding. The organization focuses on developing management solutions for operators of refrigeration equipment in the food display and storage sectors.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 14 core team members listed in the ZetoChain whitepaper. Individuals listed are current employees of Zeto (an existing business). It is unclear whether all team members will have a significant role with the ZetoChain project. The roles and responsibilities are with respect to Zeto as opposed to ZetoChain. Thus, the level of commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Information presented on the CEO’s LinkedIn page is limited. There is no information provided that gives further details with regards to the qualifications of the individual or the responsibilities for previous work experiences. Overall, the level of information presented on LinkedIn profiles varies considerably. However all team members include linked to their LinkedIn profiles, along with a short bio description.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most individuals that would be working on the ZeroChain project have prior experience with IoT development and refrigeration equipment solutions due to the nature of Zeto’s business. As a result, the skill set of the team is highly relevant.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Zeto is already an operational business, and as such, The ZetoChain team possesses an adequate number of individuals with experience with business development. There is a lack of individuals that have had extensive experience with blockchain focused projects but there are a considerable number of software engineers.

Strategic Partnerships: The following partnerships are listed on the website: – Nimbus Research Centre/Cork Institute of Technology (Ireland’s Leading Research Centre in Cyber-Physical Systems & Internet of Things) – Prechain Capital (focuses exclusively on startups working on blockchain technology, tokens, and crypto assets) – ICO Watchdog (offers enhanced data to help traders make smarter decisions) The only notable partnership is with Nimbus Research Centre.

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).

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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.

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - A couple of partnerships connected to founders or advisors.
Company and Team Score:
3.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Specific use cases of ZETO tokens are discussed in the whitepaper. Users that use ZETO tokens for purchases (software licenses, hardware, services, etc) will receive a significant discount (specific details of the discount are not included in the document). ZETO tokens are also used with the platform’s rewards program and is also a means of exchange within the Zeto data marketplace.

Token Economy: There is a section of the whitepaper the specifically addresses the ZETO token economy. Participants of the ecosystem are presented as follows: – Clients: Zeto’s customers (retail businesses,transport companies, product manufacturers etc.) – Staff: Employees of our clients – Customers: Customers of clients (general public) – External Parties: Third party providers of software solutions It is stated that use cases for ZETO are currently being investigated and explored with partners. Thus the token economy of the platform is fully developed.

System Decentralization (besides token): Since the platform intends to sell proprietary software and hardware, the platform is fairly centralized. With regards to data storage, it is stated that the first release of the produce will “use of the services and data stores currently in use at Zeto”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Total supply: 340 million ZETO Soft cap: unspecified Hard cap: unspecified

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 60% – Development 30% – Marketing 10% – Legal/ICO Costs Further details of each allocation are not presented. It is not clear what costs are associated with the development fund. A more thorough breakdown would be beneficial.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 44% – ICO 7.5% – Investors 12% – Pre-sale 34% – Zeto 2.5% – Bounty Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized without due consideration of the broader issue.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
1.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website