ImmVRse

ImmVRse is a decentralised (hybrid) VR content sharing platform where brands, content creators, viewers and advertisers will collaborate to produce some of the best VR contents.

About ImmVRse

ImmVRse is a virtual reality (VR) platform that allows for the trade and distribution of VR-related content in exchange for IMV tokens. Users that engage with the application will be rewarded with IMV tokens. Payments recieved from advertisers will be distributed among the ImmVRse organization, users that engage with the platform, and content creators.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.0
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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

The level of competition within the space of VR-related projects using blockchain technology is quite high. However, the growth potential and target user base are quite large as well, as the industry will see rapid growth in the coming years. A GitHub page is not provided.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.6
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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

IMV is an ERC20 compliant token used as a means of exchange within the ImmVRse ecosystem. Users will be able to exchange IMV tokens for products/applications on the ImmVRse platform. Since the IMV is basically a means of exchange, the need for a custom token is questionable. A potential justification for the custom token is that revenue from advertising is to be shared with users and content creators. However, this process is feasibly possible with the sole use of ETH and smart contracts.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.4
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is deceptively long at 42 pages and relies heavily on the use of images and figures. The technology plan is presented using layman language and constitutes a high-level overview of platform functionality using a large flow chart. The business plan is presented in a similar fashion and is accompanied by discussions of awards and badge systems, and other specifics of the ImmVRse platform. Overall, the whitepaper does not exhibit the qualities of a professional document, but the content is relatively comprehensive from a business perspective and satisfactory from a technological perspective.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.4
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

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 roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q4 2017 to Q2 2019 and contains a fair amount of detail. Milestones are presented with descriptions of what they entail. Milestones reached thus far include launching the marketing campaign and beginning the development of the ImmVRse DApp MVP. The alpha version of the product is planned to launch by Q4 of 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.4
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer section and it is not explicitly stated whether IMV tokens should be considered securities. US residents are restricted from participating in the token sale according to the ImmVRse website.

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?

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?

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

The team of 9 individuals is listed on the ImmVRse website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions, and links to social media profiles. The skill set of the team is geared towards business as opposed to technology. It should be noted that none of the team members were found to have extensive professional experience with VR-related project development.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.2
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?

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?

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

The total number of IMV tokens is 300 million (33% is for the ICO, 52% is reserved for ImmVRse, 10% is for the team and advisors, and 4% is for bounties and rewards). The allocation of tokens is described in fair detail compared to standard ICOs. However, more information is desired in this case due to the large portion of tokens reserved for the company (52%). Funding allocation is described in sufficient detail. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $20MM USD, where 1 IMV = $0.20 USD. The exact date of the token sale is unspecified but will take place in Q1 2018.

Product

The level of competition within the space of VR-related projects using blockchain technology is quite high. However, the growth potential and target user base are quite large as well, as the industry will see rapid growth in the coming years. A GitHub page is not provided.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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:
2.0

Use of Blockchain

IMV is an ERC20 compliant token used as a means of exchange within the ImmVRse ecosystem. Users will be able to exchange IMV tokens for products/applications on the ImmVRse platform. Since the IMV is basically a means of exchange, the need for a custom token is questionable. A potential justification for the custom token is that revenue from advertising is to be shared with users and content creators. However, this process is feasibly possible with the sole use of ETH and smart contracts.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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:
1.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is deceptively long at 42 pages and relies heavily on the use of images and figures. The technology plan is presented using layman language and constitutes a high-level overview of platform functionality using a large flow chart. The business plan is presented in a similar fashion and is accompanied by discussions of awards and badge systems, and other specifics of the ImmVRse platform. Overall, the whitepaper does not exhibit the qualities of a professional document, but the content is relatively comprehensive from a business perspective and satisfactory from a technological perspective.

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?

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

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from Q4 2017 to Q2 2019 and contains a fair amount of detail. Milestones are presented with descriptions of what they entail. Milestones reached thus far include launching the marketing campaign and beginning the development of the ImmVRse DApp MVP. The alpha version of the product is planned to launch by Q4 of 2018.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

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:
2.4

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer section and it is not explicitly stated whether IMV tokens should be considered securities. US residents are restricted from participating in the token sale according to the ImmVRse website.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
1.4

Company and Team

The team of 9 individuals is listed on the ImmVRse website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions, and links to social media profiles. The skill set of the team is geared towards business as opposed to technology. It should be noted that none of the team members were found to have extensive professional experience with VR-related project development.

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?

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

The total number of IMV tokens is 300 million (33% is for the ICO, 52% is reserved for ImmVRse, 10% is for the team and advisors, and 4% is for bounties and rewards). The allocation of tokens is described in fair detail compared to standard ICOs. However, more information is desired in this case due to the large portion of tokens reserved for the company (52%). Funding allocation is described in sufficient detail. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $20MM USD, where 1 IMV = $0.20 USD. The exact date of the token sale is unspecified but will take place in Q1 2018.

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?

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?

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:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website