Basic Rating

  • ODEM.IO

  • ODEM.IO seeks to reduce costs and improve access to premium education by directly connecting educators with students and eliminating inefficient intermediaries.
  • 2.4

Rating Insights

Odem is an ecosystem that connects instructors and students while eliminating the need for educational institutions. Instructors will be able teach using on-line resources as well as traditional in-person lessons. Educators will be charged a service fee for listing educational content and resources on the platform, which students will be able to buy along with the option of receiving in-person lessons (depending on the availability of the instructor). ODEMT utility tokens will be used for transactions taking place on the Odem platform.

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
2.6
Product

Product

There are a number of traditional as well as innovative competitors in the education sector. Organizations such as Khan Academy, Coursera, and others allow users to access educational content on-line for little cost. Odem plans to set itself apart and compete with these organizations by emphasizing in-person educational programs. However, with in-person teachers, it is reasonable to assume that cost will increase relative to its on-line counterparts. From an employer perspective, it is important to ensure that reputation and accreditation is available for the educational platform. Odem plans to address this issue by providing a service fee discount for instructors from an accredited university so as to attract instructors that already have an established reputation.

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?

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?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
2.8
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

Innovative ideas regarding teaching methods struggle to come to fruition within the current institutional framework, making the educational sector ripe for disruption. The ability to connect students with instructors without the need for a centralized institution would be of great contribution to the blockchain ecosystem. However, Odem’s approach and how it plans to compete with currently existing, low cost, on-line resources is still under development, and widespread adoption is key to the success of the platform.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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?

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.)?

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.
2.6
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

The technological details of the Odem platform are quite brief and discussed mainly in layman terms. For example, artificial intelligence is mentioned as a possible solution for pairing students with educators, however technical details regarding this solution are completely absent. From a business perspective, Odem does a better job at providing sufficient details to inform the reader of how it plans to compete with existing educational platforms and the logistics of its operation.

Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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.
1.6
Roadmap

Roadmap

Development plans for future enhancements of the Odem platform are included in the whitepaper, however, milestones are vague and seemingly non-committal as there is a lack of deadlines. Some milestones are incredibly ambitious, and should include much more detailed information. For example, one of Odem’s milestones is to create a “cross-border education institution, a global international school (ODEM University)”, yet this is devoid of any sort of time-line or associated goals.

Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
2.2
Compliance

Compliance

The token sale will follow KYC guidelines and of course, ODEMT does not have the legal qualifications of a security. US citizens will not be able to participate in the token sale, along with citizens of China and South Korea. The crowdsale is stated to operate within a Swiss legal environment that is still under development.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
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)
2.6
Company and Team

Company and Team

The fairly sizable team of 10-15 members can be found on the Odem whitepaper. Included are profile pictures and job titles, as well as short descriptions for the C-level executives (short descriptions of the rest of the team can be found on the Odem website). Links to social media profiles are absent from the whitepaper but a manual search using LinkedIn (for a small sample size) shows that the credentials of the team members are verifiable and at least related to the Odem project. The overall balance of the team favors business as opposed to technology.

Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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.
2.2
Token Sale

Token Sale

The total number of ODEMT tokens is approximately 397 million (where 45% is for the main ICO, 18% is for the Odem organization, 15% for presale, 11% for bounties, 6% for advisors and 5% for the Odem team). The hard cap is measured with ODEMT tokens at 180 million, where 1 ODEMT = 0.05 EUR (equivalent price in Ether will be updated 24 hours before the Token sale). The public token sale begins on February 17, 2018.

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.

Product

There are a number of traditional as well as innovative competitors in the education sector. Organizations such as Khan Academy, Coursera, and others allow users to access educational content on-line for little cost. Odem plans to set itself apart and compete with these organizations by emphasizing in-person educational programs. However, with in-person teachers, it is reasonable to assume that cost will increase relative to its on-line counterparts. From an employer perspective, it is important to ensure that reputation and accreditation is available for the educational platform. Odem plans to address this issue by providing a service fee discount for instructors from an accredited university so as to attract instructors that already have an established reputation.

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?

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?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Use of Blockchain

Innovative ideas regarding teaching methods struggle to come to fruition within the current institutional framework, making the educational sector ripe for disruption. The ability to connect students with instructors without the need for a centralized institution would be of great contribution to the blockchain ecosystem. However, Odem’s approach and how it plans to compete with currently existing, low cost, on-line resources is still under development, and widespread adoption is key to the success of the platform.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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?

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.)?

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.

Whitepaper

The technological details of the Odem platform are quite brief and discussed mainly in layman terms. For example, artificial intelligence is mentioned as a possible solution for pairing students with educators, however technical details regarding this solution are completely absent. From a business perspective, Odem does a better job at providing sufficient details to inform the reader of how it plans to compete with existing educational platforms and the logistics of its operation.

Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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.

Roadmap

Development plans for future enhancements of the Odem platform are included in the whitepaper, however, milestones are vague and seemingly non-committal as there is a lack of deadlines. Some milestones are incredibly ambitious, and should include much more detailed information. For example, one of Odem’s milestones is to create a “cross-border education institution, a global international school (ODEM University)”, yet this is devoid of any sort of time-line or associated goals.

Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Compliance

The token sale will follow KYC guidelines and of course, ODEMT does not have the legal qualifications of a security. US citizens will not be able to participate in the token sale, along with citizens of China and South Korea. The crowdsale is stated to operate within a Swiss legal environment that is still under development.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
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)

Company and Team

The fairly sizable team of 10-15 members can be found on the Odem whitepaper. Included are profile pictures and job titles, as well as short descriptions for the C-level executives (short descriptions of the rest of the team can be found on the Odem website). Links to social media profiles are absent from the whitepaper but a manual search using LinkedIn (for a small sample size) shows that the credentials of the team members are verifiable and at least related to the Odem project. The overall balance of the team favors business as opposed to technology.

Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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.

Token Sale

The total number of ODEMT tokens is approximately 397 million (where 45% is for the main ICO, 18% is for the Odem organization, 15% for presale, 11% for bounties, 6% for advisors and 5% for the Odem team). The hard cap is measured with ODEMT tokens at 180 million, where 1 ODEMT = 0.05 EUR (equivalent price in Ether will be updated 24 hours before the Token sale). The public token sale begins on February 17, 2018.

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Read Reviews