Basic Rating

  • Mango Startups

  • Mango Startups is the first decentralized fund for Latin America. We are investing in a diversified portfolio of 24 tech startups. We offer a clear exit strategy for our investors
  • 2.0

Rating Insights

Mango Startups is conducting an ICO to raise funds for the purpose of investing in a portfolio of tech startups from Latin America. The company is headed by the lead team of the InvertUP Seed Capital Fund, and has an option to buy up to 35% of the “InvertUP Fund 16/17” at portfolio valuation. According to the whitepaper, the fund currently has a $2.8M valuation and is invested in a diversified portfolio of 8 post-product stage tech companies called Batch 2, all of which have a proven business model, have traction in their home country, and are break-even companies. The fund owns on average 18% equity in each company. The first exit was in November 2016 (M&A Kiboo/ADC Mobile at $6M, x12). The fund is listed on the National Stock Exchange of Costa Rica and is powered by the Latin America Accelerators Network, which it coordinates and leads, particularly the Parque Tec Accelerator. Mango Startups is raising up to $3,000,000, of which up to $1,000,000 will be used to buy up to a 35% membership interest in the InvertUP Fund – Batch 2 portfolio. Funds above $1M will get invested in future startups from InvertUP and other network accelerators.

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
2.4
Product

Product

Ratings apply to the InvertUP fund as the product. (See Description for details.)
InvertUp is a spin off of Parque Tec founded in 2015 and based in San José, Costa Rica.
On Crunchbase lists 11 investments (8 lead) and 1 exit.

Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
1.0
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

Tokens are used as a passive investment vehicle only. Investment and profit distribution strategies are fully determined by the company (centralized). No smart contract code or specifications are provided.

Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
2.2
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

Whitepaper is 22 pages long, and remains vague, non-binding, and undetailed. Things like future profit distribution (via token buyback mechanism or airdrops) and ICO terms (in 7 short bullet points which read more like a general idea), are only superficially addressed, and no smart contract structure is provided. The Fund is described in somewhat more detail, and the 8 portfolio companies are quickly introduced with a short description, industry classification, business model, and founders (with LinkedIn), as well as the InvertUP share, latest valuation, and investment and accelerator rounds.

Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
2.4
Roadmap

Roadmap

Not much is given by way of a roadmap, even with regard to financial strategy. Batch 3 companies are to be selected, then first net profit distribution, then Batch 4, up to 24 companies in the portfolio. Not only is no particular timeline given, if the funds from the ICO are to be invested in Batch 2, then it is irrelevant. No roadmap with regard to the Batch 2 companies or invested funds is given. Furthermore, no timeline is given on finalizing or disclosing the profit distribution model, and it is not clear how regulatory issues are to be handled.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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.
1.2
Compliance

Compliance

Tokens are used as a passive investment vehicle only, and are therefore distinctly securities. While the fund is listed in the Costa Rica stock exchange, international regulatory compliance is an issue. The whitepaper leads with an “Important Notice” saying that US citizens/residents are not “allowed” to purchase the tokens, that “this document is not an offer of securities or a collective investment scheme”, “ownership of tokens carries no rights, express or implied”, “All decisions involving the Network or Company will be made by the Company at its sole discretion”, etc. No smart contract code or specifications are available, and terms of profit distribution are vague and determined fully by the company.

Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

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.
2.4
Company and Team

Company and Team

While the fund was founded in 2015 and is already somewhat established, Mango Startups was founded recently in 2017. The team of the project consists of ten members, most with convincing financial and/or business backgrounds and networks. There is only one blockchain developer (software developer, does not appear to have any previous blockchain experience).

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
2.4
Token Sale

Token Sale

Total token supply is stated as 40M, 10M available for presale (with 33% bonus), 30M available for main ICO. Somehow also 7% are also reserved for ICO admin costs. The whitepaper also states that 75% of tokens will be available for sale in the ICO, while 25% will be kept by the team and investors (presumably, this is what they mean by ‘presale’).
Token price is 0.10 USD.
HardCap is 3,000,000 USD.

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?

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.

Product

Ratings apply to the InvertUP fund as the product. (See Description for details.)
InvertUp is a spin off of Parque Tec founded in 2015 and based in San José, Costa Rica.
On Crunchbase lists 11 investments (8 lead) and 1 exit.

Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Use of Blockchain

Tokens are used as a passive investment vehicle only. Investment and profit distribution strategies are fully determined by the company (centralized). No smart contract code or specifications are provided.

Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.

Whitepaper

Whitepaper is 22 pages long, and remains vague, non-binding, and undetailed. Things like future profit distribution (via token buyback mechanism or airdrops) and ICO terms (in 7 short bullet points which read more like a general idea), are only superficially addressed, and no smart contract structure is provided. The Fund is described in somewhat more detail, and the 8 portfolio companies are quickly introduced with a short description, industry classification, business model, and founders (with LinkedIn), as well as the InvertUP share, latest valuation, and investment and accelerator rounds.

Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Roadmap

Not much is given by way of a roadmap, even with regard to financial strategy. Batch 3 companies are to be selected, then first net profit distribution, then Batch 4, up to 24 companies in the portfolio. Not only is no particular timeline given, if the funds from the ICO are to be invested in Batch 2, then it is irrelevant. No roadmap with regard to the Batch 2 companies or invested funds is given. Furthermore, no timeline is given on finalizing or disclosing the profit distribution model, and it is not clear how regulatory issues are to be handled.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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.

Compliance

Tokens are used as a passive investment vehicle only, and are therefore distinctly securities. While the fund is listed in the Costa Rica stock exchange, international regulatory compliance is an issue. The whitepaper leads with an “Important Notice” saying that US citizens/residents are not “allowed” to purchase the tokens, that “this document is not an offer of securities or a collective investment scheme”, “ownership of tokens carries no rights, express or implied”, “All decisions involving the Network or Company will be made by the Company at its sole discretion”, etc. No smart contract code or specifications are available, and terms of profit distribution are vague and determined fully by the company.

Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

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.

Company and Team

While the fund was founded in 2015 and is already somewhat established, Mango Startups was founded recently in 2017. The team of the project consists of ten members, most with convincing financial and/or business backgrounds and networks. There is only one blockchain developer (software developer, does not appear to have any previous blockchain experience).

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.

Token Sale

Total token supply is stated as 40M, 10M available for presale (with 33% bonus), 30M available for main ICO. Somehow also 7% are also reserved for ICO admin costs. The whitepaper also states that 75% of tokens will be available for sale in the ICO, while 25% will be kept by the team and investors (presumably, this is what they mean by ‘presale’).
Token price is 0.10 USD.
HardCap is 3,000,000 USD.

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?

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Read Reviews