Crestonium

Crestonium offers the seamless experience of sending and receiving currency globally at zero cost. Crestonium prides itself as being one of the few cryptocurrencies out there with zero fees .

About Crestonium

Crestonium aims to provide a way for users to send and receive currency at zero cost. The organization also claims that it will provide “instant transfer, and the support of many different crypto-currencies”. It is also stated that users “will get a full refund of their original transaction if the value of CXS doesnt appreciate 150% within 6 months of the end of ICO”.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.8
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Product

Crestonium aims to become a digital means of exchange and as a result, faces numerous competitors that have a much better product and have been in development for numerous years. The organization’s GitHub page is not provided and based on the development roadmap, there is no indication that any significant development has been done on the Crestonium platform.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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.)?

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

CXS is an ERC20 compliant token. It is stated that CXS tokens are to be used for all transactions within the Crestonium ecosystem. It is not clear if Crestonium will be able to accomplish its goals (free and instant peer-to-peer transactions), based on the information presented in the whitepaper. When asked about how the organization plans to enable 0% fee transfers, the organization responded by saying: “we have strategy partners and most of our profit comes from merchant deals, not from our community. Most companies charge fees just to increase their profit, not to make enough money to function. At Crestonium, however, our community is our number one priority”. This response hardly gives confidence that the organization will be able to deliver on its promises with regard to 0% fees, and there are numerous other aspects of the platform are missing a thorough discussion.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

1.2
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

1.0
N/A
1 - I still don't get it.
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 moderate in length at 44 pages. There is a drastic difference in readability between the section that discusses technology and the rest of the document, where the tone lacks professionalism and the content is quite vague and generic. The discussion regarding the protocol is considerably technical and well beyond a layman level explanation, perhaps to a degree that obfuscates the information it provides. This particular section seems out of place with regard to the rest of the document, especially considering that the section is followed by an unnecessary explanation of what an API is used for (a relatively simply and well known aspect of application software).

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

1.2
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q1 2018 to 2020 and contains moderate levels of detail. Milestones are grouped by quarters/years and are presented without explanations as to what they entail. Milestones reached thus far include the development of the whitepaper and the initiation of mobile app development. Integration of cryptocurrencies and P2P transfers is planned to be available in Q2 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.4
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
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 whitepaper contains a disclaimer section at the beginning, and a terms and conditions section, as well as a discussion of the risk factors associated with CXS tokens and the Crestonium platform. It is explicitly stated that CXS tokens are not to be considered securities. Crestonium makes the claim that ICO participates will be refunded if CXS tokens do no appreciate by at least 150% 6 months after the token sale. There is minimal documentation assuring that the organization will abide by this promise. It is unknown whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether particular jurisdictions/demographics are prohibited from participating.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

1.4
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (e.g., no online profiles).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

The team’s 12 members are listed on the Crestonium website, along with their profile pictures and short descriptions outlining each member’s proficiencies and professional background. For most team members, no social media profile links are provided. Only 4 individuals are stated to be currently working at Crestonium according to the organization’s LinkedIn page. As a result, the team assembly, commitment, and skill set relevance is not assured.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
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

The total number of CXS tokens is 500 million (73% is for the token sale, 5% is for the team and advisors, 10% is for the reserve fund, 4% is for strategy partners and the bounty program, and 8% is for the foundation). Vesting periods are not clearly indicated. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (55% is for software and business development, 15% is for the reserve fund, 10% is for legal and miscellaneous expenses, 11% is for operational expenses, and 9% is for marketing). The soft cap is $2MM USD and the hard cap is $55MM USD, where 1 CXS = 0.00002 BTC. The token sale takes place between February 21, 2018 to April 7, 2018.

Product

Crestonium aims to become a digital means of exchange and as a result, faces numerous competitors that have a much better product and have been in development for numerous years. The organization’s GitHub page is not provided and based on the development roadmap, there is no indication that any significant development has been done on the Crestonium platform.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Product Score:
1.8

Use of Blockchain

CXS is an ERC20 compliant token. It is stated that CXS tokens are to be used for all transactions within the Crestonium ecosystem. It is not clear if Crestonium will be able to accomplish its goals (free and instant peer-to-peer transactions), based on the information presented in the whitepaper. When asked about how the organization plans to enable 0% fee transfers, the organization responded by saying: “we have strategy partners and most of our profit comes from merchant deals, not from our community. Most companies charge fees just to increase their profit, not to make enough money to function. At Crestonium, however, our community is our number one priority”. This response hardly gives confidence that the organization will be able to deliver on its promises with regard to 0% fees, and there are numerous other aspects of the platform are missing a thorough discussion.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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.)?

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:
1.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is moderate in length at 44 pages. There is a drastic difference in readability between the section that discusses technology and the rest of the document, where the tone lacks professionalism and the content is quite vague and generic. The discussion regarding the protocol is considerably technical and well beyond a layman level explanation, perhaps to a degree that obfuscates the information it provides. This particular section seems out of place with regard to the rest of the document, especially considering that the section is followed by an unnecessary explanation of what an API is used for (a relatively simply and well known aspect of application software).

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

1.0
N/A
1 - I still don't get it.
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:
1.2

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q1 2018 to 2020 and contains moderate levels of detail. Milestones are grouped by quarters/years and are presented without explanations as to what they entail. Milestones reached thus far include the development of the whitepaper and the initiation of mobile app development. Integration of cryptocurrencies and P2P transfers is planned to be available in Q2 2018.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
1.2

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a disclaimer section at the beginning, and a terms and conditions section, as well as a discussion of the risk factors associated with CXS tokens and the Crestonium platform. It is explicitly stated that CXS tokens are not to be considered securities. Crestonium makes the claim that ICO participates will be refunded if CXS tokens do no appreciate by at least 150% 6 months after the token sale. There is minimal documentation assuring that the organization will abide by this promise. It is unknown whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether particular jurisdictions/demographics are prohibited from participating.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
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:
1.4

Company and Team

The team’s 12 members are listed on the Crestonium website, along with their profile pictures and short descriptions outlining each member’s proficiencies and professional background. For most team members, no social media profile links are provided. Only 4 individuals are stated to be currently working at Crestonium according to the organization’s LinkedIn page. As a result, the team assembly, commitment, and skill set relevance is not assured.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (e.g., no online profiles).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
1.4

Token Sale

The total number of CXS tokens is 500 million (73% is for the token sale, 5% is for the team and advisors, 10% is for the reserve fund, 4% is for strategy partners and the bounty program, and 8% is for the foundation). Vesting periods are not clearly indicated. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (55% is for software and business development, 15% is for the reserve fund, 10% is for legal and miscellaneous expenses, 11% is for operational expenses, and 9% is for marketing). The soft cap is $2MM USD and the hard cap is $55MM USD, where 1 CXS = 0.00002 BTC. The token sale takes place between February 21, 2018 to April 7, 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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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

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

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

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

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

Use this code to share the ratings on your website