Evident Proof

Evident Proof aims to deliver immutable data, provenance and proof services to businesses and enable proof and provenance services to individuals.

About Evident Proof

Evident Proof aims to develop a blockchain-based platform for provision of immutable proof, enabling the use of data transactions as dependable evidence. The platform creates unique signatures or seals for digital records (i.e., hashes of the data) and stores them in an immutable ledger (the proof chain), from which reliable proof certificates can be obtained on demand. Proof certificates are reports that verify the correctness, completeness and time-order of digital records submitted as evidence, or indicate if there is any difference between the data items and their seals. Submissions of requests for proof certificates include the data items being used as evidence paired with the receipts to their seals, along with the scope, order and time period of the proof required. EVT tokens are required for making requests for proof certificates on the platform. Whenever a user adds a seal to the proof chain, they are rewarded with a token (for future use or transfer) along with the receipt (the key to invoking the use of the associated seal in a proof certificate request).

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

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

Product

* Evident Proof aims to provide a solution for data management, compliance, reporting, and other due diligence purposes, with a service that maintains immutable chains of evidence seals which can be used for verification when necessary. Theoretical use cases range from individuals storing their CV’s to enterprise licensing systems. The company envisions the platform as one that “will enable evidence of legislative compliance, provenance as service, risk management and eventually court ready evidence.”
* The whitepaper states that “Evident is able to demonstrate that the technology is working now with live client data and they have enterprises who intend to use the platform in the future.” However, links to an MVP or a Github repo are not provided.
* The project appears to be conceptually similar to Proof-of-Existence (poex.io), the same concept used by Po.et for creative content, but with a more business-related or legislative orientation. Competitors include Tierion, Acronis, and PeerNova.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.2
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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?

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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

* The proof chain is to be maintained simultaneously on two blockchains – one private and one public. The private blockchain is used for all regular service support and for generating proof certificates for primary service users (allowing for optimal transaction costs and speed), while the public blockchain guarantees the private blockchain’s integrity and immutability, and is the method for generating proof certificates for secondary service users.
* Primary Service Users will be registered users of the service under a service agreement, while Secondary Service Users will be organizations with time-limited permissions enabled by a primary service user to generate proof certificates.
* A seal will be “a hash encoded (e.g. 256 or 512 digit SHA-3) version of the value field of a KeyName/Value pair in the evidence data. Appended to this is meta data of the dispatch and the KeyName.”
* A proof certificate will be comprised of a header (with request information), a primary table of results comparing the data to the seal, and a secondary table with reference data that can be used to independently verify the primary table from the public blockchain.
* EVT tokens are to be generated only when data is stored on the platform, and used to request proof certificates.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.8
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
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

Evident Proof provides three documents: a whitepaper, a technical whitepaper, and a platform overview.
The platform overview is clear, concise, and provides the necessary essential information regarding platform use and operation.
The whitepaper is similarly clear, concise, well-designed, and provides a greater amount of information regarding the value proposition, product and market, the token sale, and the company and team, as well as the platform technology, including theoretical use cases with record data schemas for: Government Licensing Systems, IOT in the Oil Industry, Bicycle Manufacturer, Security and Compliance Consultancy.
The technical whitepaper is presented in the style of an academic paper and provides a detailed account of the planned solution, platform operation, data flow, use of tokens and certificates, implementation and architecture, and applications.
The documents provided are clear, coherent, and consistent in their descriptions of the platform.
More information is required with regard to the business plan in terms of the company’s own business model and strategy, which are not really presented. The roadmap milestones are few and vague and end in plans to “Develop business exit” in 2021+, and token allocation and use of proceeds, while well-defined, are presented with no accompanying details, explanations, or rationale.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

With regard to the Evident Proof platform itself, the documentation provides well thought out design specifications with long term/range theoretical use cases, and the platform architecture and planned implementation appear to be well fledged. However, the company’s own long-term business strategy as well as future development plans remain unclear. The roadmap provided in the whitepaper is very rudimentary, listing only major milestones such as “Blockchain service marketing launch in the UK” in Q2-2018, “Marketing Launch “in the US and Asia in Q4-2018, “Recruit in Asia and US and on-board customers” in 2019, and “Develop business exit” in 2021+. The whitepaper contains vague forward-looking statements such as “The platform will now be developed into a broader, scalable service, designed to deliver proof chain services for organisations as well as the individual. Evident plans to build tools for the open source community to enable connectivity and integration.”

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.8
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?

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional, audited.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

* The EVT is an ERC20 token which functions as a promissory note related to seal receipts and proof certificates. Evident Proof tokens are generated only when data is stored on the platform, and are used to request proof certificates.
* The website’s footer is a professionally worded disclaimer absolving the company of any liability. (“No guarantee or assurance is given by the Company or by the Company Representatives that the Company’s proposals, objectives and/or outcomes set out in the Available Information will be achieved in whole or in part.”)
* The whitepaper contains a “Summary of Legal Considerations, Risks, and Disclaimer” and links to the “Evident Proof Token (EPT) Full Legal Considerations, Risks and Disclaimer” document which is highly detailed and professional. The regular and technical whitepapers also contain a detailed “Copyright Notice”.
* “The Company does not recommend purchasing Tokens for speculative investment purposes. Tokens do not entitle you to any equity, governance, voting or similar right or entitlement in the Company or in any of its affiliated companies. Tokens are sold as digital assets, similar to downloadable software, digital music and the like.”
* “The Company has engaged CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP as its legal advisor to advise on the verification of the statements in the Whitepaper and to carry out an IPO level verification process with the Directors of the Company.”

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?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

* Team members and advisors are shown on the website, the whitepaper also contains short bios, but LinkedIn profile links are not provided, although a manual search of a small sample gives the impression that LinkedIn profiles are available showing relevant professional experience and involvement in the project.
* The shown team is comprised of 7 management team members (CEO, Innovation, Operations, Marketing, CTO, CFO, Creative) and 6 advisors. Overall the team appears to have collective experience in computer science and technological development, as well as management of tech companies, but not directly with blockchain-related projects or companies. Only one advisor appears to have blockchain related experience (more along the lines of news and financing than development); another is a research scientist at the MIT Media Lab’s Human Dynamics Group; the rest bring experience more related to investment and business.
* The founders of Evident are Adrian Clarke (CEO), Dr James Anderson (Innovation), and Dr Ken Boness (Operations). Adrian Clarke is listed in his position on LinkedIn since Dec 2017 (3 months), following 8 years as Innovation Director, Principle Technology Strategist at Microsoft. James Anderson is listed on LinkedIn as a lecturer at the University of Reading (teaching mathematics for computer scientists, researching transmathematics and advanced computer architectures, and raising capital to build a supercomputer of his own design), and as advisor to the project since January. Ken Boness is also listed as a lecturer at the University of Reading and as advisor to the project since June of last year. Adrian Clarke and CTO Matt Roden are co-founders of Berkshire Cloud Ltd, the company developing the Evident platform. Berkshire Cloud, a solutions provider specializing in Healthcare, Telecoms, Local Government, Media, Retail and Construction, was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Reading (UK). According to the documentation, the project’s technical whitepaper was written Dr Ken Boness supported by Dr James Anderson.
* According to the documentation, Evident is comprised of two organisations. Evident-Proof Limited is a special purpose vehicle incorporated in Gibraltar, which will own the platform and all of its technology and intellectual property, and will supervise the performance of its operating subsidiary, Evident-Proof Services Limited, which will be the operations company (also to be incorporated
in Gibraltar), and manage the day to day operations of the platform. Both companies will have a contractual relationship with Berkshire Cloud Limited, which will continue to develop and support the platform’s progress.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.0
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

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?

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

* Raise amount maximum and minimum, hard or soft caps, are not stated in the documentation.
* “The total supply of tokens and rate of issue depends on the volume of data transactions and evidence seals processed by the Evident service in a given period. Each seal triggers the creation and issue, to the service user, of an amount of tokens based on a defined relationship of seals and tokens (eg. one seal might equate to 0.0005 of a token). It is intended that the number of tokens will be capped: • Up to 100 million for issue to contributors of the presale and ICO. • Up to 400 million for long term operation of the service (including the 100 million issued at presale and ICO). As a consequence of the cap, the fraction of a token issued against each seal must be revised downward in order to assure the cap of 400 million tokens is not exceeded.”
* Token Allocation: 45% – long-term operational utility, 20% – founders/team/advisors, 25% – ICO contributors, and 10% – partnerships and bounties.
* Use of Proceeds: 20% – software development, 20% – ETH reserve, 25% – marketing/business dev, 20% – operational expenses, 5% – legal expenses, 10% IP acquisition.

Product

* Evident Proof aims to provide a solution for data management, compliance, reporting, and other due diligence purposes, with a service that maintains immutable chains of evidence seals which can be used for verification when necessary. Theoretical use cases range from individuals storing their CV’s to enterprise licensing systems. The company envisions the platform as one that “will enable evidence of legislative compliance, provenance as service, risk management and eventually court ready evidence.”
* The whitepaper states that “Evident is able to demonstrate that the technology is working now with live client data and they have enterprises who intend to use the platform in the future.” However, links to an MVP or a Github repo are not provided.
* The project appears to be conceptually similar to Proof-of-Existence (poex.io), the same concept used by Po.et for creative content, but with a more business-related or legislative orientation. Competitors include Tierion, Acronis, and PeerNova.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
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

* The proof chain is to be maintained simultaneously on two blockchains – one private and one public. The private blockchain is used for all regular service support and for generating proof certificates for primary service users (allowing for optimal transaction costs and speed), while the public blockchain guarantees the private blockchain’s integrity and immutability, and is the method for generating proof certificates for secondary service users.
* Primary Service Users will be registered users of the service under a service agreement, while Secondary Service Users will be organizations with time-limited permissions enabled by a primary service user to generate proof certificates.
* A seal will be “a hash encoded (e.g. 256 or 512 digit SHA-3) version of the value field of a KeyName/Value pair in the evidence data. Appended to this is meta data of the dispatch and the KeyName.”
* A proof certificate will be comprised of a header (with request information), a primary table of results comparing the data to the seal, and a secondary table with reference data that can be used to independently verify the primary table from the public blockchain.
* EVT tokens are to be generated only when data is stored on the platform, and used to request proof certificates.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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?

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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.2

Whitepaper

Evident Proof provides three documents: a whitepaper, a technical whitepaper, and a platform overview.
The platform overview is clear, concise, and provides the necessary essential information regarding platform use and operation.
The whitepaper is similarly clear, concise, well-designed, and provides a greater amount of information regarding the value proposition, product and market, the token sale, and the company and team, as well as the platform technology, including theoretical use cases with record data schemas for: Government Licensing Systems, IOT in the Oil Industry, Bicycle Manufacturer, Security and Compliance Consultancy.
The technical whitepaper is presented in the style of an academic paper and provides a detailed account of the planned solution, platform operation, data flow, use of tokens and certificates, implementation and architecture, and applications.
The documents provided are clear, coherent, and consistent in their descriptions of the platform.
More information is required with regard to the business plan in terms of the company’s own business model and strategy, which are not really presented. The roadmap milestones are few and vague and end in plans to “Develop business exit” in 2021+, and token allocation and use of proceeds, while well-defined, are presented with no accompanying details, explanations, or rationale.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
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:
3.8

Roadmap

With regard to the Evident Proof platform itself, the documentation provides well thought out design specifications with long term/range theoretical use cases, and the platform architecture and planned implementation appear to be well fledged. However, the company’s own long-term business strategy as well as future development plans remain unclear. The roadmap provided in the whitepaper is very rudimentary, listing only major milestones such as “Blockchain service marketing launch in the UK” in Q2-2018, “Marketing Launch “in the US and Asia in Q4-2018, “Recruit in Asia and US and on-board customers” in 2019, and “Develop business exit” in 2021+. The whitepaper contains vague forward-looking statements such as “The platform will now be developed into a broader, scalable service, designed to deliver proof chain services for organisations as well as the individual. Evident plans to build tools for the open source community to enable connectivity and integration.”

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
3.2

Compliance

* The EVT is an ERC20 token which functions as a promissory note related to seal receipts and proof certificates. Evident Proof tokens are generated only when data is stored on the platform, and are used to request proof certificates.
* The website’s footer is a professionally worded disclaimer absolving the company of any liability. (“No guarantee or assurance is given by the Company or by the Company Representatives that the Company’s proposals, objectives and/or outcomes set out in the Available Information will be achieved in whole or in part.”)
* The whitepaper contains a “Summary of Legal Considerations, Risks, and Disclaimer” and links to the “Evident Proof Token (EPT) Full Legal Considerations, Risks and Disclaimer” document which is highly detailed and professional. The regular and technical whitepapers also contain a detailed “Copyright Notice”.
* “The Company does not recommend purchasing Tokens for speculative investment purposes. Tokens do not entitle you to any equity, governance, voting or similar right or entitlement in the Company or in any of its affiliated companies. Tokens are sold as digital assets, similar to downloadable software, digital music and the like.”
* “The Company has engaged CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP as its legal advisor to advise on the verification of the statements in the Whitepaper and to carry out an IPO level verification process with the Directors of the Company.”

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?

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional, audited.
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:
3.8

Company and Team

* Team members and advisors are shown on the website, the whitepaper also contains short bios, but LinkedIn profile links are not provided, although a manual search of a small sample gives the impression that LinkedIn profiles are available showing relevant professional experience and involvement in the project.
* The shown team is comprised of 7 management team members (CEO, Innovation, Operations, Marketing, CTO, CFO, Creative) and 6 advisors. Overall the team appears to have collective experience in computer science and technological development, as well as management of tech companies, but not directly with blockchain-related projects or companies. Only one advisor appears to have blockchain related experience (more along the lines of news and financing than development); another is a research scientist at the MIT Media Lab’s Human Dynamics Group; the rest bring experience more related to investment and business.
* The founders of Evident are Adrian Clarke (CEO), Dr James Anderson (Innovation), and Dr Ken Boness (Operations). Adrian Clarke is listed in his position on LinkedIn since Dec 2017 (3 months), following 8 years as Innovation Director, Principle Technology Strategist at Microsoft. James Anderson is listed on LinkedIn as a lecturer at the University of Reading (teaching mathematics for computer scientists, researching transmathematics and advanced computer architectures, and raising capital to build a supercomputer of his own design), and as advisor to the project since January. Ken Boness is also listed as a lecturer at the University of Reading and as advisor to the project since June of last year. Adrian Clarke and CTO Matt Roden are co-founders of Berkshire Cloud Ltd, the company developing the Evident platform. Berkshire Cloud, a solutions provider specializing in Healthcare, Telecoms, Local Government, Media, Retail and Construction, was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Reading (UK). According to the documentation, the project’s technical whitepaper was written Dr Ken Boness supported by Dr James Anderson.
* According to the documentation, Evident is comprised of two organisations. Evident-Proof Limited is a special purpose vehicle incorporated in Gibraltar, which will own the platform and all of its technology and intellectual property, and will supervise the performance of its operating subsidiary, Evident-Proof Services Limited, which will be the operations company (also to be incorporated
in Gibraltar), and manage the day to day operations of the platform. Both companies will have a contractual relationship with Berkshire Cloud Limited, which will continue to develop and support the platform’s progress.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Sale

* Raise amount maximum and minimum, hard or soft caps, are not stated in the documentation.
* “The total supply of tokens and rate of issue depends on the volume of data transactions and evidence seals processed by the Evident service in a given period. Each seal triggers the creation and issue, to the service user, of an amount of tokens based on a defined relationship of seals and tokens (eg. one seal might equate to 0.0005 of a token). It is intended that the number of tokens will be capped: • Up to 100 million for issue to contributors of the presale and ICO. • Up to 400 million for long term operation of the service (including the 100 million issued at presale and ICO). As a consequence of the cap, the fraction of a token issued against each seal must be revised downward in order to assure the cap of 400 million tokens is not exceeded.”
* Token Allocation: 45% – long-term operational utility, 20% – founders/team/advisors, 25% – ICO contributors, and 10% – partnerships and bounties.
* Use of Proceeds: 20% – software development, 20% – ETH reserve, 25% – marketing/business dev, 20% – operational expenses, 5% – legal expenses, 10% IP acquisition.

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?

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:
2.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website