Electrify.Asia

ELECTRIFY is the first retail electricity marketplace in Southeast-Asia addressing the need for transparency and security in the consumption of energy.

About Electrify.Asia

Electrify.Asia is an Asian based company that has an existing platform that allows consumers to purchase energy from electricity retailers. Now, they are planning to release their platform 2.0, that shall integrate their existing platform smart contracts and blockchain on OmiseGo’s blockchain, to allow consumers to purchase energy and power directly from retailers or P2P sources.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

4.2
Product
Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.

Product

According to Electrify’s Singaporean website found here (<-insert link: https://electrify.sg/), Electrify has supplied companies with over 500,000 kWh of electricity. Their platform doesn’t seem big at the moment, but it is a working product, tried and tested. Their new platform’s appeal is massive – over 60% of the world’s population lives in Asia, and the majority lives in cities. Changing the way consumers pay and get their energy could be groundbreaking. Their competition comes from the native energy industries, not from a cryptocurrency’s perspective. If it works, it could be quite innovative.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.6
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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

Electrify.Asia has recently announced they are running their platform through OmiseGo’s. There are total of 750,000,000 ELEC tokens, half of which are issued in the ICO. Depending on percentages raised, the company plans to expand its work outside of Singapore towards Japan and later on to The Philippines and Australia. ELEC tokens will be used for transactions fees within the Synergy platform and also to pay out loyalty rewards to consumers. There isn’t quite a need for a specific custom token. The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is actually quite large, since it shows companies are willing to trust OmiseGo’s blockchain with big platforms. This could have big implications in 2018’s cryptomarket.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.8
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

At 15 pages, it has more infographics than actual text-based information. It is very reader friendly, and it’s very easy to understand what Electrify.Asia wishes to accomplish. When it comes to transparency however, it is not quite transparent. They do go in some detail about tokens and fund allocation, founders background and ICO sale but the tech isn’t mentioned one bit, and it is more presented as a sales pitch. Business plan is absent, although there is a clear direction seen in the WP.

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.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
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

Their roadmap, as described in their short WP, is very ambitious and optimistic. They’re planning to sell their ELEC token through an ICO (and a presale), launch their marketplace 2.0 and designated eWallet, launch synergy & an IoT device called Powerpod as well as a planned expansion to Japan. How feasible this plan is will come down to several factors, including Electrify.Asia’s ICO success and OmiseGo’s network’s success as well.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.6
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Only through utility value, or airtight compliance.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

There is no mention of any legal or compliance issues raised in any of Electrify’s public documents, English or Chinese. The ELEC token’s purpose is to pay transaction fees and to reward loyal consumers, according to Electrify, but there is no mention on how this is to be achieved. There’s also no mention of technological infrastructure in place. Lacks critical information.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.4
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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

Only the founders’ small biography can be found in Electrify’s WP, and no information other than a LinkedIn link and images are presented in Electrify’s homepage. There’s more information about the advisory board than there is about the team, which doesn’t bode well for a project of this caliber.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.0
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and 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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.

Token Sale

Electrify.Asia’s set hard cap is $30,000,000 and there is no known minimum raise amount. The only accepted currency is ETH. The total token supply is 750,000,000 ELEC tokens, half of which are for sale. The token distribution will go as follows: 50% – token sale, 18.4% – team and vesting members, 9.0% – advisors and partners, 4.1% – airdrop to community, 18.5% – treasury and community development. The distribution seems a bit skewed, leaving the majority of the tokens in the hands of parties of interest. The funds will be allocated as follows: 54% – development, technology and research, 10% – legal and accounting, 20% – staffing, 11% – operations, 10% – business development and partnerships. There is some media presence and following, and Electrify.Asia have a Facebook page along with a telegram channel.

Product

According to Electrify’s Singaporean website found here (<-insert link: https://electrify.sg/), Electrify has supplied companies with over 500,000 kWh of electricity. Their platform doesn’t seem big at the moment, but it is a working product, tried and tested. Their new platform’s appeal is massive – over 60% of the world’s population lives in Asia, and the majority lives in cities. Changing the way consumers pay and get their energy could be groundbreaking. Their competition comes from the native energy industries, not from a cryptocurrency’s perspective. If it works, it could be quite innovative.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
Product Score:
4.2

Use of Blockchain

Electrify.Asia has recently announced they are running their platform through OmiseGo’s. There are total of 750,000,000 ELEC tokens, half of which are issued in the ICO. Depending on percentages raised, the company plans to expand its work outside of Singapore towards Japan and later on to The Philippines and Australia. ELEC tokens will be used for transactions fees within the Synergy platform and also to pay out loyalty rewards to consumers. There isn’t quite a need for a specific custom token. The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is actually quite large, since it shows companies are willing to trust OmiseGo’s blockchain with big platforms. This could have big implications in 2018’s cryptomarket.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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:
3.6

Whitepaper

At 15 pages, it has more infographics than actual text-based information. It is very reader friendly, and it’s very easy to understand what Electrify.Asia wishes to accomplish. When it comes to transparency however, it is not quite transparent. They do go in some detail about tokens and fund allocation, founders background and ICO sale but the tech isn’t mentioned one bit, and it is more presented as a sales pitch. Business plan is absent, although there is a clear direction seen in the WP.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
2.8

Roadmap

Their roadmap, as described in their short WP, is very ambitious and optimistic. They’re planning to sell their ELEC token through an ICO (and a presale), launch their marketplace 2.0 and designated eWallet, launch synergy & an IoT device called Powerpod as well as a planned expansion to Japan. How feasible this plan is will come down to several factors, including Electrify.Asia’s ICO success and OmiseGo’s network’s success as well.

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.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
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:
3.0

Compliance

There is no mention of any legal or compliance issues raised in any of Electrify’s public documents, English or Chinese. The ELEC token’s purpose is to pay transaction fees and to reward loyal consumers, according to Electrify, but there is no mention on how this is to be achieved. There’s also no mention of technological infrastructure in place. Lacks critical information.

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Only through utility value, or airtight compliance.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
2.6

Company and Team

Only the founders’ small biography can be found in Electrify’s WP, and no information other than a LinkedIn link and images are presented in Electrify’s homepage. There’s more information about the advisory board than there is about the team, which doesn’t bode well for a project of this caliber.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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:
2.4

Token Sale

Electrify.Asia’s set hard cap is $30,000,000 and there is no known minimum raise amount. The only accepted currency is ETH. The total token supply is 750,000,000 ELEC tokens, half of which are for sale. The token distribution will go as follows: 50% – token sale, 18.4% – team and vesting members, 9.0% – advisors and partners, 4.1% – airdrop to community, 18.5% – treasury and community development. The distribution seems a bit skewed, leaving the majority of the tokens in the hands of parties of interest. The funds will be allocated as follows: 54% – development, technology and research, 10% – legal and accounting, 20% – staffing, 11% – operations, 10% – business development and partnerships. There is some media presence and following, and Electrify.Asia have a Facebook page along with a telegram channel.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and 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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.
Token Sale Score:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website