Open Collectors Network

The first decentralized exchange for one-of-a-kind tokens, where everyone can seamlessly own, create, customize, interact with and trade individual items.

About Open Collectors Network

Open Collectors Network aims to be a decentralized platform for one-of-a-kind tokens (non-fungible), where platform users can own, create, customize, interact with and trade individual tokens, on an open market, based on existing standard specifications (ERC721). In time, as increasingly more tokens are created on the platform, the early or popular ones will appreciate in value, enabling their owner to auction them to the highest bidder for a profit. All creation and trading operations on the platform will have a nominal fee associated with them, the proceeds from which will be shared with the holders of the Open Collectors Network platform’s own utility token: the ECTO token.
Competitors: Winding Tree, CryptoKitties, CryptoPunks, 0x, OpenSea, Stellar Lumens
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Can create non-fungible token and trade it on the same platform

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.0
Product
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

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

Product

There is currently a prototype program avaialble for testing, however there is no publicly accessible github repo. Complete blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, and the first public beta release is planned to be occur in Q4-2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Open Collectors Network product, given the increasing demand for verifiable, transparent, unique digital items. The potential / target user-base will grow within the gaming industry along with the demand for unique digital items, as well as with the adoption of cryptocurrency in the general population. There are currently only a few projects attempting to develop similar non-fungible token creation and/or trading, and blockchain competition will stiffen over time as adoption continues.
Competitors: Winding Tree, CryptoKitties, CryptoPunks, 0x, OpenSea, Stellar Lumens

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.8
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.

Use of Blockchain

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating an independent and decentralized platform for unique, non-fungible token creation and trading. There is a disruptive advantage as, in theory, the platform is aimed at decentralizing currently large centralized legacy products and use cases, such as gaming and ticketing. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace which allows for pricing and settlements as well as interaction on the platform. There is contribution to the blockchain ecosystem, in providing a new marketplace that is different in scope than average cryptocurrency exchanges.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.8
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

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?

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?

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

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very well put together, professional and aesthetic, and provides a good mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is 32-pages long, and can be easily read and understood due to the amount of presented media. The whitepaper provides high level information and includes the following main sections which are each described in detail: Executive Summary, Introduction, Business Model, Use Cases, Goals, Rewards & the ECTO Token, Technical Details, Roadmap v1.0 – alpha, and Team. The business and technology plans behind Open Collectors Network are concisely explained. No references are provided in the paper.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

A basic roadmap is given on a monthly to quarterly basis starting with ‘ERC721 analysis’. Many critical obstacles lie ahead as team expansion, final platform/blockchain development, and public platform launch will occur after the ICO, however there is a prototype currently available for testing. The roadmap is vague and no descriptions are provided of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
Oct. 2017 – ERC721 analysis / Smart-contract Draft
Dec. 2017 – ECTO token smart contracts / Trading smart-contracts demo
Jan. 2018 – Team Expansion / Whitepaper / metamask / smart-contracts integration and testing
Mar. 2018 – Prototype redesign / First use case implementation
Apr. 2018 – Marketing phase / ECTO token sale contracts security audited and deployed on mainnet
Q2 2018 – Token Sale / Team Expansion / Logisitcs planning / Exchange Listing
Q3 2018 – ECTO Incubator / Muliple Use Case implementation / Platform Beta version
Q4 2018 – Platform v1.0 release

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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 ECTO-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the Open Collectors Network platform, allowing users to create non-fungible, unique tokens, interact on the platform and trade the tokens. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means to price tokens and settle transactions but also allows interaction on the platform itself.
The token smart-contract beta infrastructure will be completed after the ICO. No code is currently available for public review.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence, and is enforced via a registration and manual screening process. 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 statement that the token is not to be deemed a security.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

Open Collectors Network has an established team with 10 employees and 8 advisors.
The core team has experience in software, web, and mobile app development, product management, digital marketing, law, and cybersecurity.
The advisors have backgrounds in tech startups, FinTech, investments, ICO advisement, tech development, software architecture, business development, Esports, and cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contracts projects.
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 multiple projects outside of Open Collectors Network. Many of the advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects, investing, and ICO consultation/launch, however no core member holds the title of blockchain developer.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has a lot of previous experience in software development.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project and there are no blockchain developers currently staffed to the project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.8
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.

Token Sale

Open Collectors Network Token (ECTO)
Token Sale Price: 1 ECTO = 0.000166 ETH
Hard Cap: 15,000 ETH
Soft Cap: 3,000 ETH
Token Supply: 150 million ECTO

Token distribution:
65% ICO
13% Company (used for partnerships)
10% Advisors (released in batches over a 6-12 month period)
10% Founders (vested for 12 months)
2% Bounty

Bonus:
Week 1 – 10% 1 ETH = 6600 ECTO
Week 2 – 5% 1 ETH = 6300 ECTO
Week 3 – 3% 1 ETH = 6180 ECTO
Week 4 – 0% 1 ETH 6000 ECTO

Use of funds
37% Development
30% Partnerships
20% Marketing
10% Legal & Operations
3% Unforseen

Social Media Presence & Following
There is good community engagment and reception, however it is difficult to tell if it is completely organic engagement.

Product

There is currently a prototype program avaialble for testing, however there is no publicly accessible github repo. Complete blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, and the first public beta release is planned to be occur in Q4-2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Open Collectors Network product, given the increasing demand for verifiable, transparent, unique digital items. The potential / target user-base will grow within the gaming industry along with the demand for unique digital items, as well as with the adoption of cryptocurrency in the general population. There are currently only a few projects attempting to develop similar non-fungible token creation and/or trading, and blockchain competition will stiffen over time as adoption continues.
Competitors: Winding Tree, CryptoKitties, CryptoPunks, 0x, OpenSea, Stellar Lumens

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

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

Use of Blockchain

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating an independent and decentralized platform for unique, non-fungible token creation and trading. There is a disruptive advantage as, in theory, the platform is aimed at decentralizing currently large centralized legacy products and use cases, such as gaming and ticketing. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace which allows for pricing and settlements as well as interaction on the platform. There is contribution to the blockchain ecosystem, in providing a new marketplace that is different in scope than average cryptocurrency exchanges.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very well put together, professional and aesthetic, and provides a good mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is 32-pages long, and can be easily read and understood due to the amount of presented media. The whitepaper provides high level information and includes the following main sections which are each described in detail: Executive Summary, Introduction, Business Model, Use Cases, Goals, Rewards & the ECTO Token, Technical Details, Roadmap v1.0 – alpha, and Team. The business and technology plans behind Open Collectors Network are concisely explained. No references are provided in the paper.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
3.8

Roadmap

A basic roadmap is given on a monthly to quarterly basis starting with ‘ERC721 analysis’. Many critical obstacles lie ahead as team expansion, final platform/blockchain development, and public platform launch will occur after the ICO, however there is a prototype currently available for testing. The roadmap is vague and no descriptions are provided of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
Oct. 2017 – ERC721 analysis / Smart-contract Draft
Dec. 2017 – ECTO token smart contracts / Trading smart-contracts demo
Jan. 2018 – Team Expansion / Whitepaper / metamask / smart-contracts integration and testing
Mar. 2018 – Prototype redesign / First use case implementation
Apr. 2018 – Marketing phase / ECTO token sale contracts security audited and deployed on mainnet
Q2 2018 – Token Sale / Team Expansion / Logisitcs planning / Exchange Listing
Q3 2018 – ECTO Incubator / Muliple Use Case implementation / Platform Beta version
Q4 2018 – Platform v1.0 release

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
3.0

Compliance

The ECTO-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the Open Collectors Network platform, allowing users to create non-fungible, unique tokens, interact on the platform and trade the tokens. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means to price tokens and settle transactions but also allows interaction on the platform itself.
The token smart-contract beta infrastructure will be completed after the ICO. No code is currently available for public review.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence, and is enforced via a registration and manual screening process. 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 statement that the token is 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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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

Open Collectors Network has an established team with 10 employees and 8 advisors.
The core team has experience in software, web, and mobile app development, product management, digital marketing, law, and cybersecurity.
The advisors have backgrounds in tech startups, FinTech, investments, ICO advisement, tech development, software architecture, business development, Esports, and cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contracts projects.
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 multiple projects outside of Open Collectors Network. Many of the advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects, investing, and ICO consultation/launch, however no core member holds the title of blockchain developer.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has a lot of previous experience in software development.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project and there are no blockchain developers currently staffed to the project.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Sale

Open Collectors Network Token (ECTO)
Token Sale Price: 1 ECTO = 0.000166 ETH
Hard Cap: 15,000 ETH
Soft Cap: 3,000 ETH
Token Supply: 150 million ECTO

Token distribution:
65% ICO
13% Company (used for partnerships)
10% Advisors (released in batches over a 6-12 month period)
10% Founders (vested for 12 months)
2% Bounty

Bonus:
Week 1 – 10% 1 ETH = 6600 ECTO
Week 2 – 5% 1 ETH = 6300 ECTO
Week 3 – 3% 1 ETH = 6180 ECTO
Week 4 – 0% 1 ETH 6000 ECTO

Use of funds
37% Development
30% Partnerships
20% Marketing
10% Legal & Operations
3% Unforseen

Social Media Presence & Following
There is good community engagment and reception, however it is difficult to tell if it is completely organic engagement.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.
Token Sale Score:
3.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website