FreeRange

A knowledge based platform that can handle many small transactions on the Ethereum network

About FreeRange

The Free Range Application (FRA) is intended to be an information repository with a direct payment mechanism utilizing a cryptocurrency token. The FreeRange app aims to allow users to ask and answer questions in exchange for EGGtoken’s, and thus to share and monetize their knowledge.
Competitors: question.com, reddit, answers.com, Question2Answer.org, yoyow.org, knowledge.io
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Uses decentralized cryptocurrency to fuel the operations of a centralized platform.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.2
Product
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Appeal

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

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

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

Product

There is currently no publicly accessible github repo and no shown alpha/MVP/beta. Complete blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, followed by the public release.
There is appeal to the FreeRange product, given the popularity of Q&A platforms across the internet. The potential / target user-base will grow with the adoption of cryptocurrency in the general population. There is currently a large amount of legacy, centralized competition in the sector, and blockchain competition will stiffen over time as adoption continues.
Competitors: question.com, reddit, answers.com, Question2Answer.org, yoyow.org, knowledge.io

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.8
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating a Q&A platform which utlizes decentralized blockchain technology and a cryptocurrency. There is a disruptive advantage as the platform utilizes decentralized blockchain technology rather than a traditional database. There is need for a custom token, which allows for pricing and payment settlements as well as interaction on the platform. The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in the usage of an ethereum based token on a centralized platform.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.2
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
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 very well put together, professional and aesthetic, and contains a good mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is relatively short at 21-pages, and can be read quickly due to the large amount of presented media. The whitepaper provides high level information and the contains the following detailed sections: Abstract, Introduction, Platform, Monetization, Investment, Technical Specs, Future Development, and Team. The business and technology plans behind FreeRange are explained with textual and graphical explanations, however few details are provided on the technology behind the platform and only a general plan for the technological development is given.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
Feasibility

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

No roadmap is provided in the whitepaper or the website.
The platform will rely on the Ethereum network and will use an ERC 223 token.

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)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

The EGG-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the FreeRange platform, allowing users to pay for answers and get paid for providing them on the Q&A platform. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means to pay and settle transactions, but also allows interaction on the platform itself.
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, and there is a no active github repo available for public review.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence, and this is enforced with an audited, manual screening process via whitelisting. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and are not viewed as securities. The terms and conditions of the sale aim to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and provide a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.6
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?

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

FreeRange has an established team with 11 employees and 3 legal partners.
The core team has experience in real estate, marketing/sales, law research, and systems architecture.
The advisors have experience in digital currency, product architecture, e-commerce, LAN and cloud software.
Most team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Many members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of FreeRange. None of the core team members have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects. No core member is identified as a blockchain developer.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has previous tech-related experience.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project, core members have no previous experience with blockchain/cryptocurrency/smart-contract projects and no blockchain developer is currently on the team.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.4
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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

EGGToken (EGG)
1 EGG = 0.000036 ETH
Hard Cap: 20,000 ETH = +/- $20M USD
Soft Cap: 500 ETH
Total Token Supply: 1,100,000,000 EGG

Token distribution:
– 50% ICO Public sale
– 20% Team (1 Year Vest with 6 month cliff, then distributed in equal quarterly allocations for 1 year until fully distributed.)
– 19% Strategic Reserves
– 10% Advisors (1 Year Vest with 6 month cliff, then distributed in equal quarterly allocations for 1 year until fully distributed.)
– 01% Airdrop

Use of funds
N/A

Social Media Presence & Following
There is little community engagment and reception.

Product

There is currently no publicly accessible github repo and no shown alpha/MVP/beta. Complete blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, followed by the public release.
There is appeal to the FreeRange product, given the popularity of Q&A platforms across the internet. The potential / target user-base will grow with the adoption of cryptocurrency in the general population. There is currently a large amount of legacy, centralized competition in the sector, and blockchain competition will stiffen over time as adoption continues.
Competitors: question.com, reddit, answers.com, Question2Answer.org, yoyow.org, knowledge.io

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Appeal

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.2

Use of Blockchain

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating a Q&A platform which utlizes decentralized blockchain technology and a cryptocurrency. There is a disruptive advantage as the platform utilizes decentralized blockchain technology rather than a traditional database. There is need for a custom token, which allows for pricing and payment settlements as well as interaction on the platform. The contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is in the usage of an ethereum based token on a centralized platform.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very well put together, professional and aesthetic, and contains a good mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is relatively short at 21-pages, and can be read quickly due to the large amount of presented media. The whitepaper provides high level information and the contains the following detailed sections: Abstract, Introduction, Platform, Monetization, Investment, Technical Specs, Future Development, and Team. The business and technology plans behind FreeRange are explained with textual and graphical explanations, however few details are provided on the technology behind the platform and only a general plan for the technological development is given.

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?

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

Roadmap

No roadmap is provided in the whitepaper or the website.
The platform will rely on the Ethereum network and will use an ERC 223 token.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
Feasibility

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
2.0

Compliance

The EGG-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the FreeRange platform, allowing users to pay for answers and get paid for providing them on the Q&A platform. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means to pay and settle transactions, but also allows interaction on the platform itself.
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, and there is a no active github repo available for public review.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence, and this is enforced with an audited, manual screening process via whitelisting. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and are not viewed as securities. The terms and conditions of the sale aim to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and provide a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
2.6

Company and Team

FreeRange has an established team with 11 employees and 3 legal partners.
The core team has experience in real estate, marketing/sales, law research, and systems architecture.
The advisors have experience in digital currency, product architecture, e-commerce, LAN and cloud software.
Most team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Many members of the team appear to be dedicated to other projects outside of FreeRange. None of the core team members have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects. No core member is identified as a blockchain developer.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has previous tech-related experience.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project, core members have no previous experience with blockchain/cryptocurrency/smart-contract projects and no blockchain developer is currently on the team.

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?

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:
2.6

Token Sale

EGGToken (EGG)
1 EGG = 0.000036 ETH
Hard Cap: 20,000 ETH = +/- $20M USD
Soft Cap: 500 ETH
Total Token Supply: 1,100,000,000 EGG

Token distribution:
– 50% ICO Public sale
– 20% Team (1 Year Vest with 6 month cliff, then distributed in equal quarterly allocations for 1 year until fully distributed.)
– 19% Strategic Reserves
– 10% Advisors (1 Year Vest with 6 month cliff, then distributed in equal quarterly allocations for 1 year until fully distributed.)
– 01% Airdrop

Use of funds
N/A

Social Media Presence & Following
There is little community engagment and reception.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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:
2.4

Use this code to share the ratings on your website