CREDITCOIN

FLATLAY with Creditcoin - The premiere token-based affiliate network for content creators & brands in the world. One token to shop everywhere.

About CREDITCOIN

Flatlay aims to be a social marketplace for product or brand related digital assets, geared towards ecommerce sites and digital shops, featuring the Flatlay Interactive Card (FLIC) and Flatpay (Flatlay Secure Payments & the Flatlay Instant Access debit card). The purpose of the FLIC feature is to mark digital content captured in the blockchain database with invisible watermarking embedded with an encrypted identifier, so as to allow for author authentication, content management rights, and payout attribution across the web. FLIC aims to encourage users to create, publish, and distribute quality content through the Flatlay network, by increasing their content’s social value and earning potential as it gathers social interactions online, thus directly benefiting the original author with affiliate earnings paid in CreditCoin (CCOIN). Flatlay’s platform will facilitate the monetization of product/collection related content, tying content value to earnings in CCOIN, so as to complement platform features and encourage mainstream adoption. As the platform’s marketplace gathers momentum, it will support additional power retailers, marketplaces, and sales channels such as Shopify, Magento, Instagram, WeChat, etc. The Flatlay Rewards System will incorporate a dashboard for brand workflow management on promotional campaigns, with affiliate incentivization and consistent reward payouts in CCOIN.Competitors: Kodak-coin, Binded, CopyTrack.
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Flatlay targets brands and marketing content creators, and aims to create a marketplace catered to their needs, specifically by incorporating a feedback and rating system in a dynamic ecosystem.

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?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

The GITHUB REPO is merely a readme file that says “ccoin”. The roadmap of the project claims that beta apps were released in Q1 of 2017, but only one beta android app is available and the IOS app is still in alpha, available by request only. The roadmap states that full fledged apps should be released prior to the ICO, but the ICO is coming soon and these have yet to be released. The main focus of the team currently seems to be to complete the ICO, and then to potentially complete the platform, but this is not specified.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the incredible amount of branding and marketing content created on the internet and in general.
Competitors: Kodak-coin, Binded, CopyTrack.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.2
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
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 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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own digital marketplace/exchange and rating system for brand and marketing content creators. There seems to be an intention for the platform to become fully decentralized eventually, operating via open APIs. There is a disruptive advantage as it would provide content creators with direct ownership of their content via commitment to the blockchain, as well as monetization opportunities via the P2P marketplace. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace. However, the same goals can be accomplished with ETH alone, as well as in a completely decentralized manner. The project is potentially disruptive since there is currently a very large and growing amount of branding and marketing content being created and posted online.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.4
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper tends toward a more graphical presentation, yet is clean, concise, professional, and fairly easy to read. The whitepaper describes the product use cases, payment facilitation and options, the Flatlay interactive cards and global afflilate network vision, the CCOIN reward system and smart contracts, the CCOIN pre-ICO/ICO, the roadmap, and the team. The provided legal disclaimer is very short and bland, stating that CCOIN is not meant to be a security offering in any country, and uses basic language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. There is a large claim that the Flatlay Interactive card will be supported under Visa’s architecture, but, although it is patent-pending, it is still not fully developed (more may be needed for the business/technology plan with regard to this, since Visa’s B2B connect is still only in phase one of roll-out).

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.6
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

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?

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

The roadmap vision is set and provides vague generic milestones, e.g., “Begin Project”, “Site launch”, “MVP Flatlay Conenct”, “ICO launch of CCOIN network” etc. Platform development is outlined on a quarterly basis and provides no information on the steps required to complete each milestone. On the positive side, the company has already created and launched Flatlay Connect and apps (Android beta app available, IOS alpha app by request only). The team’s main focus over the last few months has been to conduct a pre-sale, launch the apps, and then host a public ICO. Development may be off the roadmap since both beta apps were set to be released in Q1 of 2017, while so far only one beta app has been released and the other is still in alpha, but according to the roadmap both apps should be out of beta and launched in Q1 of 2018. Meanwhile, the GITHUB REPO is merely a link to a readme file that says only “ccoin”, with no history or activity whatsoever. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and presumably to further develop the goals of the project, however, while according to the roadmap the product should be ready upon CCOIN release, so far this is not lining up. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network.

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?

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?

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?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)

Compliance

The CCOIN-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Flatlay platform, as it is used for trading in brand and marketing content on the P2P marketplace. The Flatlay service should be ready immediately after the ICO (but there seem to be discrepancies between the roadmap and the project’s actual progress). It seems that as of now the company’s main focus is to complete the ICO fundraising, then the Flatlay P2P apps and marketplace. The provided legal disclaimer is very short and bland, stating that CCOIN is not meant to be a security offering in any country, and uses basic language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. Besides providing a blanket statment that all global securities laws shall be followed, the company addresses compliance by hiring a reputable law practice for auditing and by employing a KYC/AML whitelisting registration process for ICO participation. The CCOIN-tokens will be usable as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges as well as on the platform’s marketplace, assumedly at the same time, though whether this will actually be the case is questionable.

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

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

An established team, whose members have experience with publishing, media, shopping websites, software development and engineering, UX/UI design/engineering, sales and marketing. The team has no blockchain developers, only one full-stack developer, and no member of the core team has any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contract, or cryptocurrency projects. Three advisors to the project have many years of experience with blockchain, fintech, smart-contract and crypto-currency projects. LinkedIn profile links with verifiable work experience and credentials are provided for all team members and advisors. Almost all core team members are fully dedicated to the Flatlay project. The team has a lot of experience in many business related aspects, but seems to be heavily lacking in technological expertise, specifically in engineering and blockchain development, however this may be compensated for by the advisors’ experience to some extent. There is a claim of representation by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth attorney’s at law, a respectable Southern California law practice, and a claim of blockchain advisement by IBM Global Entrepreneur.
5 Employees. 4 Advisors.
Positives: Almost the entire core team is fully dedicated to the project and has experience with shopping software development and design.
Negatives: No member of the core team has any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contracts, or crypto-currency projects.

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)?

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?

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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

Token Sale Summary

  • 100 Million CCOIN Tokens Issued
  • 1 ETH = 1400 CCOIN
  • ICO Limit = 70 Million CCOIN
  • The remaining 30,000,000 CCOIN tokens will be used for network growth, including such channels as marketing and rewarding active community members. Note that the pre-sale bonuses are paid out of this supply.
  • Hard cap is 50,000 ETH

Product

The GITHUB REPO is merely a readme file that says “ccoin”. The roadmap of the project claims that beta apps were released in Q1 of 2017, but only one beta android app is available and the IOS app is still in alpha, available by request only. The roadmap states that full fledged apps should be released prior to the ICO, but the ICO is coming soon and these have yet to be released. The main focus of the team currently seems to be to complete the ICO, and then to potentially complete the platform, but this is not specified.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the incredible amount of branding and marketing content created on the internet and in general.
Competitors: Kodak-coin, Binded, CopyTrack.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
3.2

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own digital marketplace/exchange and rating system for brand and marketing content creators. There seems to be an intention for the platform to become fully decentralized eventually, operating via open APIs. There is a disruptive advantage as it would provide content creators with direct ownership of their content via commitment to the blockchain, as well as monetization opportunities via the P2P marketplace. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace. However, the same goals can be accomplished with ETH alone, as well as in a completely decentralized manner. The project is potentially disruptive since there is currently a very large and growing amount of branding and marketing content being created and posted online.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
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 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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.2

Whitepaper

The whitepaper tends toward a more graphical presentation, yet is clean, concise, professional, and fairly easy to read. The whitepaper describes the product use cases, payment facilitation and options, the Flatlay interactive cards and global afflilate network vision, the CCOIN reward system and smart contracts, the CCOIN pre-ICO/ICO, the roadmap, and the team. The provided legal disclaimer is very short and bland, stating that CCOIN is not meant to be a security offering in any country, and uses basic language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. There is a large claim that the Flatlay Interactive card will be supported under Visa’s architecture, but, although it is patent-pending, it is still not fully developed (more may be needed for the business/technology plan with regard to this, since Visa’s B2B connect is still only in phase one of roll-out).

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Whitepaper Score:
3.4

Roadmap

The roadmap vision is set and provides vague generic milestones, e.g., “Begin Project”, “Site launch”, “MVP Flatlay Conenct”, “ICO launch of CCOIN network” etc. Platform development is outlined on a quarterly basis and provides no information on the steps required to complete each milestone. On the positive side, the company has already created and launched Flatlay Connect and apps (Android beta app available, IOS alpha app by request only). The team’s main focus over the last few months has been to conduct a pre-sale, launch the apps, and then host a public ICO. Development may be off the roadmap since both beta apps were set to be released in Q1 of 2017, while so far only one beta app has been released and the other is still in alpha, but according to the roadmap both apps should be out of beta and launched in Q1 of 2018. Meanwhile, the GITHUB REPO is merely a link to a readme file that says only “ccoin”, with no history or activity whatsoever. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and presumably to further develop the goals of the project, however, while according to the roadmap the product should be ready upon CCOIN release, so far this is not lining up. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

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?

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:
2.6

Compliance

The CCOIN-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Flatlay platform, as it is used for trading in brand and marketing content on the P2P marketplace. The Flatlay service should be ready immediately after the ICO (but there seem to be discrepancies between the roadmap and the project’s actual progress). It seems that as of now the company’s main focus is to complete the ICO fundraising, then the Flatlay P2P apps and marketplace. The provided legal disclaimer is very short and bland, stating that CCOIN is not meant to be a security offering in any country, and uses basic language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. Besides providing a blanket statment that all global securities laws shall be followed, the company addresses compliance by hiring a reputable law practice for auditing and by employing a KYC/AML whitelisting registration process for ICO participation. The CCOIN-tokens will be usable as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges as well as on the platform’s marketplace, assumedly at the same time, though whether this will actually be the case is questionable.

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?

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?

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?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
Compliance Score:
2.8

Company and Team

An established team, whose members have experience with publishing, media, shopping websites, software development and engineering, UX/UI design/engineering, sales and marketing. The team has no blockchain developers, only one full-stack developer, and no member of the core team has any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contract, or cryptocurrency projects. Three advisors to the project have many years of experience with blockchain, fintech, smart-contract and crypto-currency projects. LinkedIn profile links with verifiable work experience and credentials are provided for all team members and advisors. Almost all core team members are fully dedicated to the Flatlay project. The team has a lot of experience in many business related aspects, but seems to be heavily lacking in technological expertise, specifically in engineering and blockchain development, however this may be compensated for by the advisors’ experience to some extent. There is a claim of representation by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth attorney’s at law, a respectable Southern California law practice, and a claim of blockchain advisement by IBM Global Entrepreneur.
5 Employees. 4 Advisors.
Positives: Almost the entire core team is fully dedicated to the project and has experience with shopping software development and design.
Negatives: No member of the core team has any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contracts, or crypto-currency projects.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

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:
2.8

Token Sale

Token Sale Summary

  • 100 Million CCOIN Tokens Issued
  • 1 ETH = 1400 CCOIN
  • ICO Limit = 70 Million CCOIN
  • The remaining 30,000,000 CCOIN tokens will be used for network growth, including such channels as marketing and rewarding active community members. Note that the pre-sale bonuses are paid out of this supply.
  • Hard cap is 50,000 ETH

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?

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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