Cryptelo

Cryptelo is a blockchain-based encryption technology company that provides world-class, security-first data transfer, collaboration, versioning, and storage services. During the last 3 years we develo

About Cryptelo

Cryptelo aims to provide an easy way for users to collaborate and work on documents in a manner that is secure by developing a client-based encryption platform. The organization will develop libraries for a variety of devices, which users can use as APIs for their applications/services. Connection to the Cryptelo platform can be done via a cloud service or a standalone Cryptelo server. CRL tokens are used in exchange for API access.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.8
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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

The market for secure and distributed storage solutions is fairly competitive. However, where Cryptelo differs from its competition is in its encryption strategy. The service relies on client-based encryption so that, in theory, access is only provided to those than are authorized and even the company cannot gain unauthorized access. However, it should be noted that the encryption technique that Cryptelo uses is not based on blockchain technology. As a result, Cryptelo’s solution is fairly centralized. Cryptelo states that the service has already been implemented in their application, Cryptelo Drive. Cryptelo wishes to develop libraries that will allow users to use the service as an API for a variety of devices.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.0
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.

Use of Blockchain

CRL is an ERC20 compliant token. It is used as a means of exchange for services provided by Cryptelo. It is stated that Cryptelo coins were created to generate more funds. The fundamental concept of the platform does not require the creation of the custom token. It should be noted that the encryption strategy that Cryptelo uses does not involve blockchain technology. In other words, the utilization of blockchain is not extended further than the creation/exchange of tokens. It is stated that the service will use “symmetric and asymmetric encryption”, and access is authorized through a key. Thus, the use of blockchain technology is not particularly innovative, as it is primarily a means of funding 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is moderate in length at 31 pages. There are multiple documents that accompany the whitepaper, containing further discussion of the technical aspects of the platform, the terms and conditions, and summaries of the whitepaper and the token model. The technology plan is presented in fairly high detail (the technical document is 7 pages in length and is provided in addition to the whitepaper). The business plan is presented in moderate detail, with market research and a discussion of use cases. However, details regarding the service fee structure are not provided in thorough detail, and how the organization plans to address the token’s price volatility is not clearly outlined. Overall the whitepaper and the accompanying documents are fairly thorough, but some important details of the platform should be discussed further.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.4
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The span of the development roadmap is not clearly indicated with specific years and months, but rather described in terms of lengths of time (1 year, 1.5 years etc). Assuming that the roadmap presented in the whitepaper begins in 2018, it spans to 2020 and contains low levels of detail, with 7 milestones, most of which have to do with the development of libraries. The embedded goals within each milestone should be discussed further to provide more detail to the development roadmap. Overall, the roadmap is quite vague and seemingly noncommittal.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.8
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?

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

Documentation accompanying the whitepaper outlines the legal considerations of the platform and the token sale. The legal discussion is quite detailed and it is explicitly stated that CRL tokens are not to be considered securities. The language is professional. It is not explicitly stated whether Cryptelo will use KYC for their token sale and which countries are not permitted to participate.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.8
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.

Company and Team

It is stated that the company was founded in 2014 and has received seed funding of over $1MM USD. The team of 16 individuals are listed in the Cryptelo website. Short descriptions are only provided for four of the team members but links to social media profiles are provided for most. The skill set of the team is geared towards technology as opposed to business. The blockchain architect is currently involved with a number of blockchain-related projects, which is beneficial from an experience standpoint, but commitment to the Cryptelo project 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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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

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

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 CRL tokens is 500 million (30% is for public sale, 20% is for the presale, 25% is for the bounty program, and 25% is for the Cryptelo team). Vesting periods are clearly indicated in the whitepaper. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (45% is for R&D, 35% is for marketing and sales, 13% for operations, 2% for legal fees, and 5% for contingency). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is 12,000 ETH, where 1 ETH = 12,500 CRL. The token sale takes place from March 3, 2018 to April 20, 2018.

Product

The market for secure and distributed storage solutions is fairly competitive. However, where Cryptelo differs from its competition is in its encryption strategy. The service relies on client-based encryption so that, in theory, access is only provided to those than are authorized and even the company cannot gain unauthorized access. However, it should be noted that the encryption technique that Cryptelo uses is not based on blockchain technology. As a result, Cryptelo’s solution is fairly centralized. Cryptelo states that the service has already been implemented in their application, Cryptelo Drive. Cryptelo wishes to develop libraries that will allow users to use the service as an API for a variety of devices.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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:
2.8

Use of Blockchain

CRL is an ERC20 compliant token. It is used as a means of exchange for services provided by Cryptelo. It is stated that Cryptelo coins were created to generate more funds. The fundamental concept of the platform does not require the creation of the custom token. It should be noted that the encryption strategy that Cryptelo uses does not involve blockchain technology. In other words, the utilization of blockchain is not extended further than the creation/exchange of tokens. It is stated that the service will use “symmetric and asymmetric encryption”, and access is authorized through a key. Thus, the use of blockchain technology is not particularly innovative, as it is primarily a means of funding for the platform.

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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.0

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is moderate in length at 31 pages. There are multiple documents that accompany the whitepaper, containing further discussion of the technical aspects of the platform, the terms and conditions, and summaries of the whitepaper and the token model. The technology plan is presented in fairly high detail (the technical document is 7 pages in length and is provided in addition to the whitepaper). The business plan is presented in moderate detail, with market research and a discussion of use cases. However, details regarding the service fee structure are not provided in thorough detail, and how the organization plans to address the token’s price volatility is not clearly outlined. Overall the whitepaper and the accompanying documents are fairly thorough, but some important details of the platform should be discussed further.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
3.2

Roadmap

The span of the development roadmap is not clearly indicated with specific years and months, but rather described in terms of lengths of time (1 year, 1.5 years etc). Assuming that the roadmap presented in the whitepaper begins in 2018, it spans to 2020 and contains low levels of detail, with 7 milestones, most of which have to do with the development of libraries. The embedded goals within each milestone should be discussed further to provide more detail to the development roadmap. Overall, the roadmap is quite vague and seemingly noncommittal.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.4

Compliance

Documentation accompanying the whitepaper outlines the legal considerations of the platform and the token sale. The legal discussion is quite detailed and it is explicitly stated that CRL tokens are not to be considered securities. The language is professional. It is not explicitly stated whether Cryptelo will use KYC for their token sale and which countries are not permitted to participate.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

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?

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
2.8

Company and Team

It is stated that the company was founded in 2014 and has received seed funding of over $1MM USD. The team of 16 individuals are listed in the Cryptelo website. Short descriptions are only provided for four of the team members but links to social media profiles are provided for most. The skill set of the team is geared towards technology as opposed to business. The blockchain architect is currently involved with a number of blockchain-related projects, which is beneficial from an experience standpoint, but commitment to the Cryptelo project is not assured.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
3.8

Token Sale

The total number of CRL tokens is 500 million (30% is for public sale, 20% is for the presale, 25% is for the bounty program, and 25% is for the Cryptelo team). Vesting periods are clearly indicated in the whitepaper. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (45% is for R&D, 35% is for marketing and sales, 13% for operations, 2% for legal fees, and 5% for contingency). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is 12,000 ETH, where 1 ETH = 12,500 CRL. The token sale takes place from March 3, 2018 to April 20, 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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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

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

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