Apollo DAE

High Tech Digital Asset Exchange

About Apollo DAE

Apollo aims to be a cryptocurrency exchange with anonymous trading, lower fees, 24/7 Customer Service, liquid order books, new order types, a coin knowledge base, and easy account sign ups. Apollo will offer two digital assets. The first and primary token is the Apollo DAE which enables users to pay exchange fees directly on the platform. The second token offered, AVO, will be used to conduct voting directly on the Ethereum network.
Competitors: Kucoin, Binance, Bittrex, GDAX, Gemini, Kraken, Poloniex, Bitfinex, OKEx, CoinMetro, Quifas, Robinhood
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Will allow for anonymous trading.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
Product
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

Apollo is meant to be an easy-to-use cryptocurrency exchange platform. There is a publicly accessible github repo but with very little activity, however there is a beta platform available for testing. Complete beta/final blockchain development/testing and mobile app launching for the platform are planned to occur after the ICO, and the public release is planned to occur in 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the platform as there has been an ever increasing demand for cryptocurrency exchanges. The target user base is very large in-terms of the crypto community, but it is a service that caters only to the crypto community, which is about 5% or less of the current global population. So the target audience is a general one with room to expand as cryptocurrency adoption increases. There is a large amount of competition in this space, with competitors that are very well known and have been very successful. More exchanges are launching almost every month.
Competitors: Kucoin, Binance, Bittrex, GDAX, Gemini, Kraken, Poloniex, Bitfinex, OKEx, CoinMetro, Quifas, Robinhood

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.6
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

The Apollo project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating a new cryptocurrency exchange that allows for anonymous trading. The primary disruptive advantage provided by the Apollo platform is enabling higher exchange liquidity via cross-exchange APIs, which allows Apollo to utilize other exchanges to settle a trade in-network. There is need for a custom token, which allows for pricing and settlements as well as interaction on the platform such as to acess the liquid order book, save 50% on trading fees, and to use various order types.
The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in developing a new blockchain based, cryptocurrency exchange thus increasing liquidity in the cryptocurrency marketplace.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is professional and informative, and textual with a simple design. The whitepaper is short at only 15 pages, so it is easily read and understood. The whitepaper provides high level information and contains the following sections: Preamble, Purpose, Exchange Problems and Solutions, Lack of Customer Support, ICO Problems and Solutions, Apollo token sale Dynamics, and Summary. The business plan behind Apollo is detailed and concisely explained. There is very little information provided for the technology presentation, however the whitepaper located on the github is much more detailed. References are not provided.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.6
Roadmap
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

A milestone roadmap is given on a monthly to quarterly basis. Obstacles lie ahead as final platform/blockchain development, mobile apps, and public platform launch will occur after the ICO. The roadmap provides major milestones and no descriptions of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
Apr 2017 Apollo Creation
Jun 2017 Whitepaper Created
Sep 2017 Alpha Trading Engine
Oct 2017 Beta Released
Dec 2017 Pre Sale Ended
Mar 2018 ICO
Apr 2018 Token Distribution
Q2 2018 Full Platform Launch / Multilingual Support
Q3 2018 Mobile App Completion / Anonymous Trading Options / 0x Protocol Connections Enabled
Q4 2018 DAE Token Blockchain Expansion

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.2
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

The Apollo DAE tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the Apollo platform by allowing for trading and payments of fees on the platform. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means of fee payment however, the token also functions as a means for access to the network and ecosystem as a whole.
The token smart-contract code is posted for review on the publicly accessible github repo.
Attention to compliance issues is currently ignored as there are no KYC/AML statements or policies in-place.
There currently is no legal review or agreement presented in the whitepaper or on the website. The terms link provided at the bottom of the website directs to a blank page.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.4
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

Apollo has an established team with 6 employees.
The core team has experience in web development, software freelancing, network engineering, content writing, advertising/marketing, social media, and cryptocurrency mining/projects.
There are no listed advisors to the project.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Some members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of Apollo.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and the CEO has experience in cryptocurrency projects.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project and there are currently no identified blockchain developers/architects, which will be needed such to get many blockchains to communicate to the exchange.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

Apollo DAE Token (DAE)
Total Tokens: 500 million DAE
Hard Cap: n/a
Soft Cap: n/a
Price: 1 DAE = $0.08 + bonuses depending on whitelist position

TOKEN DISTRIBUTION
50% ICO
30% Reserve
20% Team and Advisors (1 year locked period)
*Unsold tokens are locked into the DAE contract. AVO holders can vote to air drop them every few months.

ICO Funds Allocation
35% Exchange Connections
20% Operations
15% Development
10% Security
10% Marketing
05% Infrastructure
05% Legal

Social Media Presence & Following
There is very little community engagment and reception.

Product

Apollo is meant to be an easy-to-use cryptocurrency exchange platform. There is a publicly accessible github repo but with very little activity, however there is a beta platform available for testing. Complete beta/final blockchain development/testing and mobile app launching for the platform are planned to occur after the ICO, and the public release is planned to occur in 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the platform as there has been an ever increasing demand for cryptocurrency exchanges. The target user base is very large in-terms of the crypto community, but it is a service that caters only to the crypto community, which is about 5% or less of the current global population. So the target audience is a general one with room to expand as cryptocurrency adoption increases. There is a large amount of competition in this space, with competitors that are very well known and have been very successful. More exchanges are launching almost every month.
Competitors: Kucoin, Binance, Bittrex, GDAX, Gemini, Kraken, Poloniex, Bitfinex, OKEx, CoinMetro, Quifas, Robinhood

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

The Apollo project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating a new cryptocurrency exchange that allows for anonymous trading. The primary disruptive advantage provided by the Apollo platform is enabling higher exchange liquidity via cross-exchange APIs, which allows Apollo to utilize other exchanges to settle a trade in-network. There is need for a custom token, which allows for pricing and settlements as well as interaction on the platform such as to acess the liquid order book, save 50% on trading fees, and to use various order types.
The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in developing a new blockchain based, cryptocurrency exchange thus increasing liquidity in the cryptocurrency marketplace.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is professional and informative, and textual with a simple design. The whitepaper is short at only 15 pages, so it is easily read and understood. The whitepaper provides high level information and contains the following sections: Preamble, Purpose, Exchange Problems and Solutions, Lack of Customer Support, ICO Problems and Solutions, Apollo token sale Dynamics, and Summary. The business plan behind Apollo is detailed and concisely explained. There is very little information provided for the technology presentation, however the whitepaper located on the github is much more detailed. References are not provided.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
3.6

Roadmap

A milestone roadmap is given on a monthly to quarterly basis. Obstacles lie ahead as final platform/blockchain development, mobile apps, and public platform launch will occur after the ICO. The roadmap provides major milestones and no descriptions of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
Apr 2017 Apollo Creation
Jun 2017 Whitepaper Created
Sep 2017 Alpha Trading Engine
Oct 2017 Beta Released
Dec 2017 Pre Sale Ended
Mar 2018 ICO
Apr 2018 Token Distribution
Q2 2018 Full Platform Launch / Multilingual Support
Q3 2018 Mobile App Completion / Anonymous Trading Options / 0x Protocol Connections Enabled
Q4 2018 DAE Token Blockchain Expansion

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.6

Compliance

The Apollo DAE tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the Apollo platform by allowing for trading and payments of fees on the platform. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means of fee payment however, the token also functions as a means for access to the network and ecosystem as a whole.
The token smart-contract code is posted for review on the publicly accessible github repo.
Attention to compliance issues is currently ignored as there are no KYC/AML statements or policies in-place.
There currently is no legal review or agreement presented in the whitepaper or on the website. The terms link provided at the bottom of the website directs to a blank page.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
2.2

Company and Team

Apollo has an established team with 6 employees.
The core team has experience in web development, software freelancing, network engineering, content writing, advertising/marketing, social media, and cryptocurrency mining/projects.
There are no listed advisors to the project.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Some members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of Apollo.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and the CEO has experience in cryptocurrency projects.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project and there are currently no identified blockchain developers/architects, which will be needed such to get many blockchains to communicate to the exchange.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.4

Token Sale

Apollo DAE Token (DAE)
Total Tokens: 500 million DAE
Hard Cap: n/a
Soft Cap: n/a
Price: 1 DAE = $0.08 + bonuses depending on whitelist position

TOKEN DISTRIBUTION
50% ICO
30% Reserve
20% Team and Advisors (1 year locked period)
*Unsold tokens are locked into the DAE contract. AVO holders can vote to air drop them every few months.

ICO Funds Allocation
35% Exchange Connections
20% Operations
15% Development
10% Security
10% Marketing
05% Infrastructure
05% Legal

Social Media Presence & Following
There is very little community engagment and reception.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website