Basic Rating

  • Play2Live

  • Play2Live allows viewers to earn a token reward by just watching gaming streams, sharing internet channel via P2P CDN service, enabling advertising and much more.
  • 2.7

Rating Insights

Play2Live is a gaming platform aimed at streamers, professional as well as casual gamers, and tournament organizers. The main issue that Play2Live plans to address, with one of its largest and most well-established competitors, Twitch, is advertising and engagement. With Play2Live, content creators will be able to generate more revenue streams and target users that use adblockers, while users will have multiple methods of earning LUC tokens which can be used for purchases on the platform. Additionally, Play2Live plans to incorporate betting functionality onto the platform.

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
2.2
Product

Product

Play2Win is in very early developmental stages of the organization, and a minimum viable product (MVP) is available on their website. The project is planned to be deployed on Graphene, a “third-generation software with cryptographic protection and decentralized data registry”. Play2Win plans to use a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) consensus algorithm. It is stated that this will allow for a “decentralized autonomous governance model” and with the use of Graphene, will support transactions rates exceeding 50,000 TPS.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
2.6
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

LUC is an ERC20 compliant token. There is potential for disruption as the video game streaming industry is quite vast, yet services are provided through large centralized organizations with inherent issues with its business model and have yet to be addressed. The need for a custom token is evident, with the proposed DPoS consensus algorithm.

Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
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 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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
3.0
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

Overall, the whitepaper lacks certain critical information, such as how compliance issues regarding the betting functionality of the platform are to be addressed, yet contains a considerable amount of background information that could be reduced so as to make the document more concise. The logistics of how this service operates is discussed in satisfactory detail. Technological details are discussed primarily in layman terms.

Comprehensiveness

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

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?

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.
2.6
Roadmap

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper contains milestones that span from Q4 2016 to Q4 2019. Most of the development efforts up until 2018 have been focused on establishing the organization, marketing, creating an MVP, and very minor blockchain-related developments (GitHub page is not provided). The alpha version of the product is set to be released in Q2 2018.

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.
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?

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?

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.
2.0
Compliance

Compliance

There is a lack of documentation regarding compliance and licensing, which are necessary to allow betting on the platform. Considering that the betting functionality is one of the primary value propositions of Play2Live’s service, a thorough discussion of the topic in the whitepaper is to be expected; however, this is not the case. It is unknown whether particular countries are restricted from participation in the token sale or whether KYC guidelines will be adhered to.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
3.4
Company and Team

Company and Team

The team of 10-15 people are presented in the whitepaper along with their profile pictures, short descriptions of their abilities, and links to their social media accounts. The team members come from backgrounds not only in business and technology, but also in eSports, which would benefit the development of this project. There is a fair balance between professional technological and business-related experience among the team members.

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
3.2
Token Sale

Token Sale

The total supply of LUC tokens is 1.3088 billion (62.5% sold to open market, 11.1% reserved for operation funds, 10.4% for founders and project team, 7.8% for partners, 7.2% for the advisory board, and 1% for bounty campaign). Play2Live includes a comprehensive breakdown of the distribution of proceeds of the token sale in the whitepaper. The soft cap is $3MM USD and the hardcap is $30MM USD, where $1 USD = 20 LUC. The public token sale begins on February 12, 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Product

Play2Win is in very early developmental stages of the organization, and a minimum viable product (MVP) is available on their website. The project is planned to be deployed on Graphene, a “third-generation software with cryptographic protection and decentralized data registry”. Play2Win plans to use a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) consensus algorithm. It is stated that this will allow for a “decentralized autonomous governance model” and with the use of Graphene, will support transactions rates exceeding 50,000 TPS.

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?

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?

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

Use of Blockchain

LUC is an ERC20 compliant token. There is potential for disruption as the video game streaming industry is quite vast, yet services are provided through large centralized organizations with inherent issues with its business model and have yet to be addressed. The need for a custom token is evident, with the proposed DPoS consensus algorithm.

Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
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 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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Whitepaper

Overall, the whitepaper lacks certain critical information, such as how compliance issues regarding the betting functionality of the platform are to be addressed, yet contains a considerable amount of background information that could be reduced so as to make the document more concise. The logistics of how this service operates is discussed in satisfactory detail. Technological details are discussed primarily in layman terms.

Comprehensiveness

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

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?

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

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper contains milestones that span from Q4 2016 to Q4 2019. Most of the development efforts up until 2018 have been focused on establishing the organization, marketing, creating an MVP, and very minor blockchain-related developments (GitHub page is not provided). The alpha version of the product is set to be released in Q2 2018.

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.
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?

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?

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

There is a lack of documentation regarding compliance and licensing, which are necessary to allow betting on the platform. Considering that the betting functionality is one of the primary value propositions of Play2Live’s service, a thorough discussion of the topic in the whitepaper is to be expected; however, this is not the case. It is unknown whether particular countries are restricted from participation in the token sale or whether KYC guidelines will be adhered to.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Company and Team

The team of 10-15 people are presented in the whitepaper along with their profile pictures, short descriptions of their abilities, and links to their social media accounts. The team members come from backgrounds not only in business and technology, but also in eSports, which would benefit the development of this project. There is a fair balance between professional technological and business-related experience among the team members.

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Token Sale

The total supply of LUC tokens is 1.3088 billion (62.5% sold to open market, 11.1% reserved for operation funds, 10.4% for founders and project team, 7.8% for partners, 7.2% for the advisory board, and 1% for bounty campaign). Play2Live includes a comprehensive breakdown of the distribution of proceeds of the token sale in the whitepaper. The soft cap is $3MM USD and the hardcap is $30MM USD, where $1 USD = 20 LUC. The public token sale begins on February 12, 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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?

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