Bountie

Bountie is a platform for gamers in Asia to make a living while playing their favourite games.

About Bountie

Bountie aims to build an ecosystem that allows gamers to earn tokens by winning tournaments, placing well on the leaderboards, and completing challenges. Bountie states that the main features of the platform include its proprietary matching algorithm, great party support, and reward system.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.6
Product
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Product

Bountie faces high levels of competition from other blockchain-related gaming platforms. Their strategy is to reward users with tokens for gaming, but there is little discussion as to what gives the tokens value. The strategy of increasing engagement using tokens is hardly unique, and Bountie does little to set itself apart from its competitors. The main features of the platform are not discussed in great detail and the current state of development is not clear as the GitHub profile is not provided.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.6
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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

BNE is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as reward for engaging with the platform through tournaments, challenges, and wagers. Token uses are not clearly outlined, but it is stated that smart contracts will be developed to enable “player-to-player wagering, leaderboard pool split, pool-to- platform split, and referral programs.” The level of innovation in the use of blockchain technology and its implementation are quite low and there is no significant need to create a custom token other than to generate funds of the platform and to create an ecosystem (decentralization is not a core value for this project).

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

1.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
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.?

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is deceptively lengthy at 50 pages, with heavy usage of visual content and low amounts of text – the majority of the document contains infographics. The technology plan is nearly nonexistent, as the document primarily focuses on the operational logistics of the platform. Most of the discussion pertains to the intended features of the platform without revealing technical specifics. The business plan presentation is also lacking in detail. Market research is very brief and specific information regarding the token model is absent from the document. Overall, the whitepaper discusses the platform in significantly low levels of detail.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q4 2017 to Q4 2019 and is presented in the format of a Gantt chart. Milestones presented are quite vague and do not contain thorough descriptions as to what they entail. For example, one of the milestones is simply “development of Bountie 1.0” without any further discussion. The private alpha is planned to launch in Q2 2018 and “development of Bountie 2.0” – stated to be a major revamp with a new design and more features – is planned for Q4 2019.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.0
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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 whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer section. Discussions regarding legal considerations and compliance are nearly nonexistent. It is not explicitly stated whether the tokens are to be considered securities. It is not indicated whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether there are restrictions as to who is able to participate.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.6
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

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

Company and Team

The team, of 13 individuals, is only listed in the whitepaper with profile pictures and shorts descriptions. Social media profiles are not provided, indicating a lack of team commitment. The skill set of the team is geared towards business development, rather than skills directly related to technology. Some team members have experience successfully competing as gamers. Only one team member claims to have experience working on a different blockchain-related project (the CFO), however investigating the individual’s LinkedIn page does not clearly indicate how the person was involved with the project and to what extent blockchain technology was used.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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

It is stated in the whitepaper that the total number of tokens is 200 million. However, token allocation is calculated using a total of 150 million tokens. It is not explicitly stated what the 50 million token discrepancy will be used for. Based on 150 million tokens, 70% will be sold during the presale and 30% will be sold during the ICO. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (45% for development, 25% for marketing, 15% for partnerships, and 15% for security and legal fees). The soft and hard caps are not clearly indicated. The public token sale takes place on June 2, 2018, where 1 ETH = 4000.

Product

Bountie faces high levels of competition from other blockchain-related gaming platforms. Their strategy is to reward users with tokens for gaming, but there is little discussion as to what gives the tokens value. The strategy of increasing engagement using tokens is hardly unique, and Bountie does little to set itself apart from its competitors. The main features of the platform are not discussed in great detail and the current state of development is not clear as the GitHub profile is not provided.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Product Score:
1.6

Use of Blockchain

BNE is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as reward for engaging with the platform through tournaments, challenges, and wagers. Token uses are not clearly outlined, but it is stated that smart contracts will be developed to enable “player-to-player wagering, leaderboard pool split, pool-to- platform split, and referral programs.” The level of innovation in the use of blockchain technology and its implementation are quite low and there is no significant need to create a custom token other than to generate funds of the platform and to create an ecosystem (decentralization is not a core value for this project).

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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:
1.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is deceptively lengthy at 50 pages, with heavy usage of visual content and low amounts of text – the majority of the document contains infographics. The technology plan is nearly nonexistent, as the document primarily focuses on the operational logistics of the platform. Most of the discussion pertains to the intended features of the platform without revealing technical specifics. The business plan presentation is also lacking in detail. Market research is very brief and specific information regarding the token model is absent from the document. Overall, the whitepaper discusses the platform in significantly low levels of detail.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
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.?

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
1.6

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q4 2017 to Q4 2019 and is presented in the format of a Gantt chart. Milestones presented are quite vague and do not contain thorough descriptions as to what they entail. For example, one of the milestones is simply “development of Bountie 1.0” without any further discussion. The private alpha is planned to launch in Q2 2018 and “development of Bountie 2.0” – stated to be a major revamp with a new design and more features – is planned for Q4 2019.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

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

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer section. Discussions regarding legal considerations and compliance are nearly nonexistent. It is not explicitly stated whether the tokens are to be considered securities. It is not indicated whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether there are restrictions as to who is able to participate.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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:
1.0

Company and Team

The team, of 13 individuals, is only listed in the whitepaper with profile pictures and shorts descriptions. Social media profiles are not provided, indicating a lack of team commitment. The skill set of the team is geared towards business development, rather than skills directly related to technology. Some team members have experience successfully competing as gamers. Only one team member claims to have experience working on a different blockchain-related project (the CFO), however investigating the individual’s LinkedIn page does not clearly indicate how the person was involved with the project and to what extent blockchain technology was used.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
2.6

Token Sale

It is stated in the whitepaper that the total number of tokens is 200 million. However, token allocation is calculated using a total of 150 million tokens. It is not explicitly stated what the 50 million token discrepancy will be used for. Based on 150 million tokens, 70% will be sold during the presale and 30% will be sold during the ICO. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (45% for development, 25% for marketing, 15% for partnerships, and 15% for security and legal fees). The soft and hard caps are not clearly indicated. The public token sale takes place on June 2, 2018, where 1 ETH = 4000.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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:
1.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website