CREDITS

CREDITS platform offers new and unique technical implementation of blockchain technology, smart contracts, data protocol and has its own internal cryptocurrency.

About CREDITS

The CREDITS platform is aimed to be a decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) financial system wherein financial services are exchanged via a distributed ledger, self-executing smart contracts, and the CREDITS cryptocurrency. Platform participants will be able to both offer and use financial services on the platform. CREDITS aims to offer a new technical solution and conceptual model of networking participants’ interactions, so as to develop a modern decentralized financial services framework. CREDITS will be an open blockchain DLT platform with its own internal cryptocurrency and self-executing smart contracts, providing companies and developers with a B2B solution for creating and trading blockchain based financial services. The CREDITS platform will be a completely autonomous blockchain system, and will offer an extended API utilizing a Turing system capable of creating services using cycles, schedules, and unique functions.Competitors: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, NEO, NEM, Bitcoin Cash, Cardano, Litecoin.
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: There is a claim of the ability of more than 1 million transactions per sec, with 0.01 seconds per operation, at transaction costs of $0.001 USD.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.2
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Product

The alpha MVP platform is operational and available for testing. The CREDITS platform is scheduled to be launched in June 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the CREDITS product, given the benefits to financial services provided by blockchain-based solutions, distributed ledgers, self-executing smart contracts, etc. – hence the massive developing interest in crypto-currencies. The potential / target user-base is large, as the financial services marketplace is the baseline for the global economy. The competition over time will greatly stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues, given the amount of capital in the target marketplace.
Competitors: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, NEO, NEM, Bitcoin Cash, Cardano, Litecoin.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

4.4
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally disruptive.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.

Use of Blockchain

There is major blockchain development and contribution to the blockchain ecosystem, as CREDITS aims to create an entirely new blockchain and cryptocurrency, using novel technology and consensus mechanisms.
There is potential for disruptive advantage, as conversion to the CS-blockchain system would be disruptive not only to traditional or legacy financial services, but also to other cryptocurrencies. CREDITS disruptive advantage rests on a novel blockchain technology that is claimed to facilitate more than 1 million transactions per second, with 0.01 seconds per operation, at transaction costs of $0.001 USD, as well as the ability to use ‘advanced’ smart contracts.
There is need for a custom token, which is to be used for the delivery of financial services via a distributed ledger and self-executing smart contracts.
CREDITS will provide open and public APIs for platform development to remain decentralized.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

4.2
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
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

There is a whitepaper, a technical whitepaper, a short presentation, a long presentation, and a three-page ‘teaser’. Each document is very well put together – professional and aesthetic – and explains the project’s visions/plans at a different level of technical detail. The documents outline the company’s abstract, the network ledger, network consensus, the transaction process, the smart-contracts, security/possible threats, and the implementation plan. The technical whitepaper explains, at a high level of technical detail, the peer-to-peer​​ network, ledger, nodes, consensus solution, transactions, security, smart contracts, and libraries​​ for​​ transfer​​ transactions​​ to ​​the ​​network ​​for ​​use ​​on ​​third-party​​ software.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.4
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasiblity

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

A very basic roadmap is given in a month-to-month manner, starting with an operational MVP that can be tried via the CREDITS website. Critical obstacles do lie ahead but progress has been made and displayed with an early release of the MVP, based on the original roadmap. The whitepaper contains a detailed technical implementation plan which corresponds with the given roadmap. The technical implementation plan is provided in stages, outlining what must be completed in each stage before proceeding. The tokens will initially be issued as ERC-20 tokens, and will later be converted to native CS-tokens operating on CREDITS independent blockchain.
Milestones:
January 2017 – Start MVP
Nov-Dec 2017 – Pre-ICO
January 2018 – Pre-alpha version
February 2018 – ICO
June 2018 – Release

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

4.0
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional and top-tier.

Compliance

The CS-token has intrinsic value through its planned usage on the CREDITS blockchain, allowing the delivery of financial services via a distributed ledger and self-executing smart contracts. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically for payments and a means for trading financial services.
The token smart-contract infrastructure is not yet completed, however it is in progress and an MVP alpha platform is available for testing.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and enforced with a registration whitelisting process and manual screening of all platform registrants.
There is a claim that CS-tokens are legally available to everyone, all over the world, including the US and Singapore; this statement may be true given that there is no ICO bonus system and the CS-tokens are intended to be utilized as actual digital currency, similar in nature to BTC, ETH, XRP, etc. The legal review and terms and conditions of the sale are very long, professional, and thorough, aiming to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and providing a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.4
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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

CREDITS has an established team with 38 employees and 9 advisors.
The core team has experience in business, finance, and tech, including sales, digital marketing, PR, community development, UI/UX design, programming, and blockchain development/architecture.
The advisors have backgrounds in software engineering, tech development, investing, law, smart manufacturing, and cybersecurity, bringing in expertise from previous experience at the likes of IBM and large capital managment/investment firms.
Some team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles. Some members of the team are fully dedicated to the project, while others are also dedicated to multiple projects outside of CREDITS. Where verifiable work credentials are lacking, it is difficult to determine if website bios provide an accurate description of experience and dedication to the project. A couple of core team members and a few advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation.
Positives: The core team is very well rounded and has several people commited to the project that have previous blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contract project experience.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project, and not all have verifiable work experience.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

4.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Majority of tokens sold, strict vesting periods, milestone dependent release.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Token Sale

– Minimum cap $1.5M USD (already achieved)
– Soft cap $15M USD
– Hard cap $20M USD
*During pre-ICO and ICO, the company plans to sell tokens to raise between 15 and 20 million USD. During the first half of 2018, the company will only have access to 50% of the funds collected, and no more than 7-10 million USD. These funds will be used to finish development and promote the platform. Remaining, unspent funds will be unlocked after the alpha launch and the full release of the platform.

Total Supply: 1,000,000,000 CS
1 ETH = 5,000 CS
– ICO – 60%
– Bounty – 2%
– Bug bounty – 2%
– Founders – 15% (tokens will be frozen for one year)
– Advisors – 1%
– Operation – 20% (Unused operation tokens will be blocked for at least one year: 10% frozen through 1 Jan 2019, 10% frozen through 1 Jan 2020)
* After the end of the ICO, the quantity of tokens sold shall constitute 60% of the total supply, and after setting the other allocations according to he specified percentages, remaining tokens will be destroyed.

Funds Allocation:
50% – (up to $10M) will not be frozen and will be used for the development and promotion of the project
30% – frozen until the release of the Alpha version (requires Escrow board confirmation and approval for release)
20% – frozen until the Full release (requires Escrow board confirmation and approval for release

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

Product

The alpha MVP platform is operational and available for testing. The CREDITS platform is scheduled to be launched in June 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the CREDITS product, given the benefits to financial services provided by blockchain-based solutions, distributed ledgers, self-executing smart contracts, etc. – hence the massive developing interest in crypto-currencies. The potential / target user-base is large, as the financial services marketplace is the baseline for the global economy. The competition over time will greatly stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues, given the amount of capital in the target marketplace.
Competitors: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, NEO, NEM, Bitcoin Cash, Cardano, Litecoin.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
Product Score:
3.2

Use of Blockchain

There is major blockchain development and contribution to the blockchain ecosystem, as CREDITS aims to create an entirely new blockchain and cryptocurrency, using novel technology and consensus mechanisms.
There is potential for disruptive advantage, as conversion to the CS-blockchain system would be disruptive not only to traditional or legacy financial services, but also to other cryptocurrencies. CREDITS disruptive advantage rests on a novel blockchain technology that is claimed to facilitate more than 1 million transactions per second, with 0.01 seconds per operation, at transaction costs of $0.001 USD, as well as the ability to use ‘advanced’ smart contracts.
There is need for a custom token, which is to be used for the delivery of financial services via a distributed ledger and self-executing smart contracts.
CREDITS will provide open and public APIs for platform development to remain decentralized.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally disruptive.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Use of Blockchain Score:
4.4

Whitepaper

There is a whitepaper, a technical whitepaper, a short presentation, a long presentation, and a three-page ‘teaser’. Each document is very well put together – professional and aesthetic – and explains the project’s visions/plans at a different level of technical detail. The documents outline the company’s abstract, the network ledger, network consensus, the transaction process, the smart-contracts, security/possible threats, and the implementation plan. The technical whitepaper explains, at a high level of technical detail, the peer-to-peer​​ network, ledger, nodes, consensus solution, transactions, security, smart contracts, and libraries​​ for​​ transfer​​ transactions​​ to ​​the ​​network ​​for ​​use ​​on ​​third-party​​ software.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
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:
4.2

Roadmap

A very basic roadmap is given in a month-to-month manner, starting with an operational MVP that can be tried via the CREDITS website. Critical obstacles do lie ahead but progress has been made and displayed with an early release of the MVP, based on the original roadmap. The whitepaper contains a detailed technical implementation plan which corresponds with the given roadmap. The technical implementation plan is provided in stages, outlining what must be completed in each stage before proceeding. The tokens will initially be issued as ERC-20 tokens, and will later be converted to native CS-tokens operating on CREDITS independent blockchain.
Milestones:
January 2017 – Start MVP
Nov-Dec 2017 – Pre-ICO
January 2018 – Pre-alpha version
February 2018 – ICO
June 2018 – Release

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasiblity

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
3.4

Compliance

The CS-token has intrinsic value through its planned usage on the CREDITS blockchain, allowing the delivery of financial services via a distributed ledger and self-executing smart contracts. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically for payments and a means for trading financial services.
The token smart-contract infrastructure is not yet completed, however it is in progress and an MVP alpha platform is available for testing.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and enforced with a registration whitelisting process and manual screening of all platform registrants.
There is a claim that CS-tokens are legally available to everyone, all over the world, including the US and Singapore; this statement may be true given that there is no ICO bonus system and the CS-tokens are intended to be utilized as actual digital currency, similar in nature to BTC, ETH, XRP, etc. The legal review and terms and conditions of the sale are very long, professional, and thorough, aiming to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and providing a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional and top-tier.
Compliance Score:
4.0

Company and Team

CREDITS has an established team with 38 employees and 9 advisors.
The core team has experience in business, finance, and tech, including sales, digital marketing, PR, community development, UI/UX design, programming, and blockchain development/architecture.
The advisors have backgrounds in software engineering, tech development, investing, law, smart manufacturing, and cybersecurity, bringing in expertise from previous experience at the likes of IBM and large capital managment/investment firms.
Some team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles. Some members of the team are fully dedicated to the project, while others are also dedicated to multiple projects outside of CREDITS. Where verifiable work credentials are lacking, it is difficult to determine if website bios provide an accurate description of experience and dedication to the project. A couple of core team members and a few advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation.
Positives: The core team is very well rounded and has several people commited to the project that have previous blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contract project experience.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project, and not all have verifiable work experience.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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:
3.4

Token Sale

– Minimum cap $1.5M USD (already achieved)
– Soft cap $15M USD
– Hard cap $20M USD
*During pre-ICO and ICO, the company plans to sell tokens to raise between 15 and 20 million USD. During the first half of 2018, the company will only have access to 50% of the funds collected, and no more than 7-10 million USD. These funds will be used to finish development and promote the platform. Remaining, unspent funds will be unlocked after the alpha launch and the full release of the platform.

Total Supply: 1,000,000,000 CS
1 ETH = 5,000 CS
– ICO – 60%
– Bounty – 2%
– Bug bounty – 2%
– Founders – 15% (tokens will be frozen for one year)
– Advisors – 1%
– Operation – 20% (Unused operation tokens will be blocked for at least one year: 10% frozen through 1 Jan 2019, 10% frozen through 1 Jan 2020)
* After the end of the ICO, the quantity of tokens sold shall constitute 60% of the total supply, and after setting the other allocations according to he specified percentages, remaining tokens will be destroyed.

Funds Allocation:
50% – (up to $10M) will not be frozen and will be used for the development and promotion of the project
30% – frozen until the release of the Alpha version (requires Escrow board confirmation and approval for release)
20% – frozen until the Full release (requires Escrow board confirmation and approval for release

Social Media Presence & Following
There is some 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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Majority of tokens sold, strict vesting periods, milestone dependent release.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.
Token Sale Score:
4.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website