Concierge.io

Decentralised Travel Marketplace built on the NEO blockchain.

About Concierge.io

Concierge is a travel booking marketplace that competes with existing centralized institutions by saving “between 15%-45% on each booking”. Instead of using intermediary booking agencies, Concierge aims to connect users directly with service providers.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

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

Product

Concierge aims to compete against travel agencies by reducing costs for the traveler. The company is targeting a niche market, but the level of competition for blockchain-related projects in this sector is fairly low. The application of blockchain technology is neither revolutionary nor innovative, but allows for a service that will be able to effectively compete with existing solutions. The Concierge GitHub page is not provided.

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?

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?

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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

CGE is built on the NEO blockchain. It is stated that Ethereum was considered, but due to long-term scalability considerations, NEO was chosen instead. CGE is used as used as a means of exchange in on Concierge ecosystem. There is no significant need for a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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 fairly long at 42 pages. The technology plan is presented in brief detail, with technical aspects of the platform explained at a layman level. The business plan is presented quite thoroughly and discusses various topics such as market overview, cost evaluation, and why there is demand for the service provided by Concierge. Overall the whitepaper is easy to read and discusses the logistics of how the platform will operate in sufficient detail.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasibility

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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 Q2 2017 to 2025 and is quite detailed. Milestones are grouped by yearly quarters and contain a fairly high number of milestones that are described in sufficient detail. Milestones reached thus far include formation of the team, creation of the whitepaper, optimizing the sale site, and designing the UI/UX aspects of the web platform and application. The Concierge team is planned to expand with more developers and sales/marketing employees in Q1 2018 and the beta application and web platform are set for release in Q2 of 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)

Compliance

There is a disclaimer at the end of the whitepaper, one page in length. Other small sections of the document also discusses the risks involved with the token sale as well as the regulatory strategy. It is explicitly stated that CGE tokens are not to be considered securities. The language is quite professional and the legal content is relatively thorough. It is stated that residents of the US and China will not be able to participate in the token sale, where KYC procedures will be used.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.8
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?

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 10 team members are listed in the whitepaper along with their profile pictures and job titles. Short descriptions of proficiencies and professional experience are provided for the C-level executives, but not for most of the developers. Upon further investigation, online profiles for some of the blockchain engineers were not found, and only 6 team members are listed on Concierge’s LinkedIn page. It is also interesting that one of the team members is listed as a ‘certified blockchain expert’, however, the said certification is not described, and without context, this gives little meaning or indication regarding the individual’s competence.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.8
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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

Details of the token sale can be found in the whitepaper. The total number of CGE tokens is 100 million (65% is for sale, 4.5% is for the founders, 4.5% is for advisers, the community and backers, 3% is for the present team, 3% is for future hires, and 20% is reserved for future development). The allocation of funds is described in fair detail. The soft cap is $11.925MM USD and the hard cap is $15.75MM USD, where 1 CGE = $0.35 USD. The main token sale takes place on March 31, 2018.

Product

Concierge aims to compete against travel agencies by reducing costs for the traveler. The company is targeting a niche market, but the level of competition for blockchain-related projects in this sector is fairly low. The application of blockchain technology is neither revolutionary nor innovative, but allows for a service that will be able to effectively compete with existing solutions. The Concierge GitHub page 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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
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

CGE is built on the NEO blockchain. It is stated that Ethereum was considered, but due to long-term scalability considerations, NEO was chosen instead. CGE is used as used as a means of exchange in on Concierge ecosystem. There is no significant need for a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform.

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?

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?

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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 fairly long at 42 pages. The technology plan is presented in brief detail, with technical aspects of the platform explained at a layman level. The business plan is presented quite thoroughly and discusses various topics such as market overview, cost evaluation, and why there is demand for the service provided by Concierge. Overall the whitepaper is easy to read and discusses the logistics of how the platform will operate in sufficient detail.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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:
3.2

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q2 2017 to 2025 and is quite detailed. Milestones are grouped by yearly quarters and contain a fairly high number of milestones that are described in sufficient detail. Milestones reached thus far include formation of the team, creation of the whitepaper, optimizing the sale site, and designing the UI/UX aspects of the web platform and application. The Concierge team is planned to expand with more developers and sales/marketing employees in Q1 2018 and the beta application and web platform are set for release in Q2 of 2018.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasibility

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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:
2.8

Compliance

There is a disclaimer at the end of the whitepaper, one page in length. Other small sections of the document also discusses the risks involved with the token sale as well as the regulatory strategy. It is explicitly stated that CGE tokens are not to be considered securities. The language is quite professional and the legal content is relatively thorough. It is stated that residents of the US and China will not be able to participate in the token sale, where KYC procedures will be used.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
Compliance Score:
2.4

Company and Team

The 10 team members are listed in the whitepaper along with their profile pictures and job titles. Short descriptions of proficiencies and professional experience are provided for the C-level executives, but not for most of the developers. Upon further investigation, online profiles for some of the blockchain engineers were not found, and only 6 team members are listed on Concierge’s LinkedIn page. It is also interesting that one of the team members is listed as a ‘certified blockchain expert’, however, the said certification is not described, and without context, this gives little meaning or indication regarding the individual’s competence.

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?

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:
2.8

Token Sale

Details of the token sale can be found in the whitepaper. The total number of CGE tokens is 100 million (65% is for sale, 4.5% is for the founders, 4.5% is for advisers, the community and backers, 3% is for the present team, 3% is for future hires, and 20% is reserved for future development). The allocation of funds is described in fair detail. The soft cap is $11.925MM USD and the hard cap is $15.75MM USD, where 1 CGE = $0.35 USD. The main token sale takes place on March 31, 2018.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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:
2.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website