Fan Controlled Football League

The Fan Controlled Football League (FCFL) is a video game brought to life. Using our app, fans from across the globe can livestream our games and vote on play calls in real time.

About Fan Controlled Football League

The Fan-Controlled Football League (FCFL) is a sports league that allows fans to engage with their team directly in a number of ways, including the ability to draft players, hire/fire coaches, and call plays in real time – all using FAN tokens. Fans can earn FAN tokens by watching games, calling plays, and other platform activities, and fans of the winning team receive a portion of the championship prize pool.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.8
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.

Product

A pilot test launched in February 2017, wherein a fan-controlled sports team, the Salt Lake Screaming Eagles, demonstrated the proof-of-concept for the FCFL. An interesting concept, with the potential to target a large user base and with little to no competition.

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

FAN is an ERC20 compliant token used for all activity in the league (the more FAN tokens a fan owns, the more control that fan has over their favorite team). Token holders will possess voting rights on various decisions, including play drafts and free agent signings as well as in-game, real-time play calls. The platform allows participants to engage more directly with the sport in a way that is yet to be seen, made possible due to the utilization of blockchain technology. However, increasing engagement and providing voting rights is not a particularly innovative idea in the realm of blockchain-related projects.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.0
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is hosted on https://view.attach.io/rJnBiarpb, where it can be read but not downloaded. A lot of information regarding the FAN token sale is absent from the whitepaper and the FCFL website. Overall, the whitepaper lacks technological details of the platform and is mainly presented in a logistical sense. However, the document is easily readable and does not attempt to obscure information with the overuse of jargon.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
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.
Feasibility

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The FCFL roadmap spans from Q4 2015 to Q4 2018. Most of the milestones reached thus far have primarily been related to the development of the platform’s proof-of-concept. The inaugural FCFL season begins in Q2 2018. Beyond 2018, FCFL plans to expand the platform with more teams, as well as additional sports such as baseball and cricket. The GitHub page shows minimal activity and the roadmap does not contain many technological milestones, such as the launch of the finalized version of the mobile application.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

The FCFL whitepaper only contains a single disclaimer paragraph, stating that FCFL does not hold responsibility for damages of any kind. There is no discussion of compliance stating explicitly whether the token has the properties of a security, but the token is labeled as a utility token in the whitepaper.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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

According to LinkedIn, LA-based FANchise was founded in 2015, however, information about the Fanchise Project (from which this project stems) can be found from earlier, including a New York Times article from 2008, as well as an Indiegogo funding project from June 2016.  The sizable team of 15-20 individuals is presented with quite lengthy descriptions of the team members’ skills and professional experience, and social media profiles can be found through the FCFL website. The team has a fair balance between individuals with expertise in business and technology, and includes team members that have been involved with football, and also with developing smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain.

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

The total number of FAN tokens is unspecified, however 50% will be available for sale, 20% will be for FCFL team, 15% for marketing, and 15% for partnerships. The allocation of funds is described in brief detail. The soft and hard cap is unspecified. It is stated that 1 ETH = 7500 FAN, and the public token sale date is unspecified.

Product

A pilot test launched in February 2017, wherein a fan-controlled sports team, the Salt Lake Screaming Eagles, demonstrated the proof-of-concept for the FCFL. An interesting concept, with the potential to target a large user base and with little to no competition.

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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
Product Score:
3.8

Use of Blockchain

FAN is an ERC20 compliant token used for all activity in the league (the more FAN tokens a fan owns, the more control that fan has over their favorite team). Token holders will possess voting rights on various decisions, including play drafts and free agent signings as well as in-game, real-time play calls. The platform allows participants to engage more directly with the sport in a way that is yet to be seen, made possible due to the utilization of blockchain technology. However, increasing engagement and providing voting rights is not a particularly innovative idea in the realm of blockchain-related projects.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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.)?

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?

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

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is hosted on https://view.attach.io/rJnBiarpb, where it can be read but not downloaded. A lot of information regarding the FAN token sale is absent from the whitepaper and the FCFL website. Overall, the whitepaper lacks technological details of the platform and is mainly presented in a logistical sense. However, the document is easily readable and does not attempt to obscure information with the overuse of jargon.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
3.0

Roadmap

The FCFL roadmap spans from Q4 2015 to Q4 2018. Most of the milestones reached thus far have primarily been related to the development of the platform’s proof-of-concept. The inaugural FCFL season begins in Q2 2018. Beyond 2018, FCFL plans to expand the platform with more teams, as well as additional sports such as baseball and cricket. The GitHub page shows minimal activity and the roadmap does not contain many technological milestones, such as the launch of the finalized version of the mobile application.

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.
Feasibility

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.8

Compliance

The FCFL whitepaper only contains a single disclaimer paragraph, stating that FCFL does not hold responsibility for damages of any kind. There is no discussion of compliance stating explicitly whether the token has the properties of a security, but the token is labeled as a utility token in the whitepaper.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
2.2

Company and Team

According to LinkedIn, LA-based FANchise was founded in 2015, however, information about the Fanchise Project (from which this project stems) can be found from earlier, including a New York Times article from 2008, as well as an Indiegogo funding project from June 2016.  The sizable team of 15-20 individuals is presented with quite lengthy descriptions of the team members’ skills and professional experience, and social media profiles can be found through the FCFL website. The team has a fair balance between individuals with expertise in business and technology, and includes team members that have been involved with football, and also with developing smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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 FAN tokens is unspecified, however 50% will be available for sale, 20% will be for FCFL team, 15% for marketing, and 15% for partnerships. The allocation of funds is described in brief detail. The soft and hard cap is unspecified. It is stated that 1 ETH = 7500 FAN, and the public token sale date is unspecified.

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