CHERR.IO

CHERR.IO is a blockchain solution for charitable donations, aiming to open new horizons for the way charitable, humanitarian and socially responsible organizations operate.

About CHERR.IO

CHERR.IO (aka CHERRIO) is blockchain solution for charitable donations that aims to innovate on the way charitable, humanitarian, and socially responsible organizations operate. CHERR.IO focuses on transparency and fraud prevention, along with features such as enabling the donor confirmation of fund allocation, a reward system for all active participants, and crypto-fundraising with low transaction fees. The CHERR.IO platform is a B2B (business-to-business) platform that caters to charitable organizations by expanding their outreach, optimizing their fundraising processes, and rebuilding donor trust with builtin transparency mechanisms via utilization of blockchain technology.
Competitors: Alice, BCharity, Charity Chain, BitHope, AidCoin, CharityStars, AID:Tech
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Unique reward program for platform participation.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.6
Product
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

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

Product

CHERRIO is meant to be a transparent blockchain solution for charitable donations. There is currently an MVP available via the website and a publicly accessible github repository. The mobile apps, beta dev/testing of the blockchain, and full platform launch are planned for after the ICO (see Roadmap). There is appeal to the platform as there has been an ever increasing demand for charitable company use-of-funds transparency. The target user base is large since it is a service that caters to the charity community. 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.
Competitors: Alice, BCharity, Charity Chain, BitHope, AidCoin, CharityStars, AID:Tech

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
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 CHR token is ERC-20 standard and is the main utility for transactions and rewards on the CHERRIO platform.
CHERRIO’s contribution to blockchain development is in the utilization of the Ethereum blockchain for the creation of a decentralized and transparent charitable donation platform.
The project’s primary disruptive advantage is based on its use of blockchain technology to create a highly transparent and secure mechanism for charitable donations.
The need for a custom token is to allow access to the platform and incentivize platform use via rewards for participation.
The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in developing a new decentralized charitable donation patform.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.4
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is professional, visually pleasing, informative, and provides a balanced mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is 26 pages long and is overall readable and understandable. The whitepaper includes the following sections: The Idea/Introduction, The Platform, Transparency and Security, Team, The CHR token sale, Case-study, and the Conclusion. The business plan behind Beaxy is detailed and concisely explained including detailed textual and graphical explanations. The technology presentation warrants a more detailed explanation of how the platform will be capable of scaling when the crypto market expands and the platform becomes more popular. References are not provided.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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 vague project roadmap is given with milestones presented on a quarterly basis. Obstacles lie ahead as mobile apps, beta platform development/deployment, and final platform will occur after the ICO. The roadmap provides major milestones and no descriptions of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Platform Roadmap:
2017 / Q2 THE IDEA
– First meeting with founders about current problems of charity organizations and how can we solve that with blockchain and smart contracts. / Deep market research about charity operations.
2017 / Q3 THE CONCEPT
– Formation of the core team / Token model development / Token sale structure
2017 / Q4 THE TEAM & THE PROTOTYPE
– Expansion of the team members who will be part of the project / Website publication / Marketing and PR campaign start
2018 / Q1 – Q2 MVP PLATFORM AND CROWDSALE
– Whitepaper publication / MVP platform testing / Crowdsale testing on testnet / MVP platform launch / Expansion of Advisory board members / Pre-sale phase / Crowdsale launch / Exchange listing
2018 / Q3 – Q4 PLATFORM PHASE 1
– Beta release for private testing / Early access for ICO investors
2019 / Q1 PLATFORM PHASE 1
– Release of the Android and iOS app / API development / Production version of platform

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Compliance

The CHR token is the main utility for transactions and rewards, and allows users to gain access to the platform to track their donations. The token smart-contract code is posted for review on the project’s publicly accessible github repo. The whitepaper and website contain a disclaimer and a discussion of risk factors. There is a basic whitelisting process, however it does not seem to follow any KYC/AML compliance standards.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.0
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?

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

CHERRIO has an established team with 12 team members and 5 advisors.
The core team has experience in tech architecture and programming, full-stack and web development, UX/UI, visual art and graphic design, marketing, online advertising and SEO, smart-contract development, and blockchain/ICO advisement.
The advisors have experience in cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contract projects, marketing, venture capitalism, distributed charity communities, fintech, and banking risk.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information and some members do not even list working for CHERRIO. Some members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of CHERRIO.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and some members and advisors have previous experience with cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contract projects.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully thought out and planned.
Raise Amount Min

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Carefully planned, raise-dependent milestones.
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

CHERRIO Token (CHR)
Total supply: 200 million CHR
Token Price: 1 CHR = 0.15 USD
Hard Cap: $12 million
Min Cap: $3 million (30% of funds raised over min. cap will go to charity)

Bonuses
Tier 1 1 CHR = 0.091 USD
Tier 2 1 CHR = 0.11 USD
Tier 3 1 CHR = 0.122 USD

Token Allocation
60% ICO
12% Founders
09% Team
07% CHERRIO platform contribution awards
04% Reserve for future Partners
02% Bounty and Airdrops

ICO Proceeds Distribution
50% Development
25% Marketing
20% Company Operations and Exchanges
05% Legal

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

Product

CHERRIO is meant to be a transparent blockchain solution for charitable donations. There is currently an MVP available via the website and a publicly accessible github repository. The mobile apps, beta dev/testing of the blockchain, and full platform launch are planned for after the ICO (see Roadmap). There is appeal to the platform as there has been an ever increasing demand for charitable company use-of-funds transparency. The target user base is large since it is a service that caters to the charity community. 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.
Competitors: Alice, BCharity, Charity Chain, BitHope, AidCoin, CharityStars, AID:Tech

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.6

Use of Blockchain

The CHR token is ERC-20 standard and is the main utility for transactions and rewards on the CHERRIO platform.
CHERRIO’s contribution to blockchain development is in the utilization of the Ethereum blockchain for the creation of a decentralized and transparent charitable donation platform.
The project’s primary disruptive advantage is based on its use of blockchain technology to create a highly transparent and secure mechanism for charitable donations.
The need for a custom token is to allow access to the platform and incentivize platform use via rewards for participation.
The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in developing a new decentralized charitable donation patform.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
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, visually pleasing, informative, and provides a balanced mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is 26 pages long and is overall readable and understandable. The whitepaper includes the following sections: The Idea/Introduction, The Platform, Transparency and Security, Team, The CHR token sale, Case-study, and the Conclusion. The business plan behind Beaxy is detailed and concisely explained including detailed textual and graphical explanations. The technology presentation warrants a more detailed explanation of how the platform will be capable of scaling when the crypto market expands and the platform becomes more popular. 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Whitepaper Score:
3.4

Roadmap

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

Platform Roadmap:
2017 / Q2 THE IDEA
– First meeting with founders about current problems of charity organizations and how can we solve that with blockchain and smart contracts. / Deep market research about charity operations.
2017 / Q3 THE CONCEPT
– Formation of the core team / Token model development / Token sale structure
2017 / Q4 THE TEAM & THE PROTOTYPE
– Expansion of the team members who will be part of the project / Website publication / Marketing and PR campaign start
2018 / Q1 – Q2 MVP PLATFORM AND CROWDSALE
– Whitepaper publication / MVP platform testing / Crowdsale testing on testnet / MVP platform launch / Expansion of Advisory board members / Pre-sale phase / Crowdsale launch / Exchange listing
2018 / Q3 – Q4 PLATFORM PHASE 1
– Beta release for private testing / Early access for ICO investors
2019 / Q1 PLATFORM PHASE 1
– Release of the Android and iOS app / API development / Production version of platform

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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:
3.0

Compliance

The CHR token is the main utility for transactions and rewards, and allows users to gain access to the platform to track their donations. The token smart-contract code is posted for review on the project’s publicly accessible github repo. The whitepaper and website contain a disclaimer and a discussion of risk factors. There is a basic whitelisting process, however it does not seem to follow any KYC/AML compliance standards.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
2.2

Company and Team

CHERRIO has an established team with 12 team members and 5 advisors.
The core team has experience in tech architecture and programming, full-stack and web development, UX/UI, visual art and graphic design, marketing, online advertising and SEO, smart-contract development, and blockchain/ICO advisement.
The advisors have experience in cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contract projects, marketing, venture capitalism, distributed charity communities, fintech, and banking risk.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information and some members do not even list working for CHERRIO. Some members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of CHERRIO.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and some members and advisors have previous experience with cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contract projects.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project.

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?

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:
3.0

Token Sale

CHERRIO Token (CHR)
Total supply: 200 million CHR
Token Price: 1 CHR = 0.15 USD
Hard Cap: $12 million
Min Cap: $3 million (30% of funds raised over min. cap will go to charity)

Bonuses
Tier 1 1 CHR = 0.091 USD
Tier 2 1 CHR = 0.11 USD
Tier 3 1 CHR = 0.122 USD

Token Allocation
60% ICO
12% Founders
09% Team
07% CHERRIO platform contribution awards
04% Reserve for future Partners
02% Bounty and Airdrops

ICO Proceeds Distribution
50% Development
25% Marketing
20% Company Operations and Exchanges
05% Legal

Social Media Presence & Following
There is 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)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully thought out and planned.
Raise Amount Min

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Carefully planned, raise-dependent milestones.
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:
3.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website