PumaPay

PumaPay is a free, open source, blockchain-based payment protocol. It is built with the vision to smoothly incorporate cryptocurrency payments into the daily life.

About PumaPay

PumaPay is developing a payment protocol called PullPayment, which utilizes “a new architecture of contract called PullContract”, to enable new blockchain-based billing methodologies and thus to provide an optimized payment processing solution suitable to the present-day needs of global commerce. The PullPayment protocol is being designed to overcome existing online payment problems and to offer tools for merchant and customer onboarding processes. It is planned to be a free, open-source project, built around a customizable chain of contracts that govern transaction behavior, so as to accommodate transactions both simple and complex (e.g., recurring, pay-per-use, split, restricted, exchange-rate corrected). Businesses will be able to use the protocols payment mechanism as is, or modify it to suit their needs. Third parties will be able to build additional services on top of the protocol and contribute to the PumaPay ecosystem.
The company says that “Through our Launch Partners, the protocol will plug into industries with tens of thousands of daily customers throughout numerous markets. PumaPay brings an incredible amount of users into the crypto space by connecting the blockchain to the real world.” Primary launch partners appear to be ImLive.com, an adult entertainment website (charging customers on a pay-per-minute basis for private live shows), and ChatMaker, a messenger app that allows businesses to send targeted direct messages to users. Also listed is Mr. Skin, a website that, according to Wikipedia, “specializes in locating, posting and rating instances of female nudity in television and film”. Overall, it seems as though PumaPay is developing an Ethereum based token with smart contract functionality particularly suited to adult entertainment, seeing as it’s primary early adopters come from the industry.

Yet, the set of tools that PumaPay plans to create (‘pulling’ rather than ‘pushing’ of funds, templates built from parameterizable modules allowing for various payment structures) appear to be suitable for many kinds of businesses. Given the pervasiveness of online adult entertainment consumption, and taking into consideration the industry’s singular historical influence on media format adoption (VHS/Betamax, Blu-ray/HD-DVD), PumaPay does indeed present the opportunity to “bring an incredible amount of users into the crypto space” and help bring cryptocurrencies into widespread, mainstream use. The company stresses that its early adopters are companies who have innovation and advanced technology at their core, selected based on their ability to disrupt their industry.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.4
Product
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

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

* PumaPay aims to design a blockchain-based infrastructure that is as “scalable, flexible and accessible as payment cards, absent their inherent flaws and disadvantages.” Additionally, “By promoting the protocol to high transaction volume industries and by providing a powerful and flexible PullPayment protocol, PumaPay hopes to become the base layer for cryptocurrency payments throughout the world.”
* At the heart of PumaPay’s PullPayment protocol is a smart-contract architecture that allows for “pulling”, rather than just “pushing” funds. Although not fully explained in the whitepaper, the purpose of this is presumably to facilitate complex transactions including recurring payments, pay-per-use, etc., by enabling smart contract activation by the recipient. The long-term vision appears to be the implementation of blockchain payment mechanisms that more accurately reflect commonly used traditional ones.
* The PumaPay SDK is planned to provide utilities and code samples for merchants, a repository of pre-signed and pre-vetted modules, and easy access to transaction data.
* Use Cases provided show how businesses can use PullContract templates built from parameterizable modules (called Authorizers) to charge for subscriptions, timed use, etc. The primary advantage appears to be the convenience of ready-made smart-contract templates and modules. However, the technology itself is not clearly defined.
* Launch partners include ImLive.com, an adult entertainment website (charging customers on a pay-per-minute basis for private live shows), and ChatMaker, a messenger app that allows businesses to send targeted direct messages to users. These are the only two described more extensively in the whitepaper, and whose integrations appear explicitely in the roadmap provided on the company’s website, but the whitepaper lists 8 additional partners, including Mr. Skin, a website that, according to Wikipedia, “specializes in locating, posting and rating instances of female nudity in television and film”. The company emphasizes that it has dozens of early adopters and launch partners (which will be introduced close to the TGE), in various industries, all of which have a significant user base and are in a good position to disrupt their market.
* PumaPay’s position is unique in that it targets the adult entertainment industry with a universal merchant infrastructure that can expand beyond it. As such, it also faces competition both from the growing use of other cryptocurrencies in adult entertainment, and from other universal blockchain-based merchant solutions.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.0
Use of Blockchain
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?

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.

Use of Blockchain

* At the heart of PumaPay’s PullPayment protocol is a smart-contract architecture that allows for “pulling”, rather than just “pushing” funds. Although not fully explained in the whitepaper, the purpose of this is presumably to facilitate complex transactions including recurring payments, pay-per-use, etc., by enabling smart contract activation by the recipient (i.e., the merchant or provider rather than the customer). This development is aimed to address the requirements of modern commerce, and to have the added advantage of placing the transaction fees on the provider.
* Other than the “pulling” of funds, the platform’s primary advantage appears to be the convenience of ready-made smart-contract templates and modules. However, the technology itself remains unclear and there is no in-depth discussion of how exactly the platform operates.
* Design specifications are not provided, and the project’s Github repo is totally empty, despite the the claim that it will be free and open-source. There is no analysis of or comparison to existing solutions (e.g., Oraclize, Ethereum Alarm Clock). The PumaPay token “will initially be built using the ERC223 standard interface but will extend the money transfer process so that advanced payment methods can be utilized.”
* PumaPay plans on introducing two versions of its token: the first – an ERC223 token which will function as a means of payment on launch partners’ platforms immediately after the TGE, and the second – a fully-functional, ORBS or EOS based version, to be introduced within six months after the TGE. (Holders of V1 will be able to convert to V2 via a special smart contract).

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 concise at 32 pages. The technology is lacking some critical details of the platform. For example, it is stated that after the token generating event, the PMA tokens will be transferred to a “next generation blockchain” which will either be ORBS or EOS. There is no significant discussion regarding the choice of either of these blockchain platforms, and since this will be foundational to the operation of PumaPay, the lack of discussion regarding these platforms is concerning. Only a couple sentences are included for the discussion of each of these platforms. This also raises the question as to why the PMA token is created based on the ERC223 token protocol in the first place instead of simply beginning development on the intended platform. It is reasonable to assume that this decision was made in order to generate funds before the final product is made. Nevertheless, the business plan is presented with a great degree of detail. There is thorough discussion with regards to problems the current payment system and how the protocol that PumaPay is proposing would simplify the process and reduce costs. A significant portion of the document discusses the use cases of the protocol. Overall the whitepaper is fairly easy to read, concise, and thorough with respect to the business plan, but is missing critical elements of the technology of the platform.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.6
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.

Roadmap

* Main development is of the PMA token and PullContract mechanism, along with Wallet apps (Android first, then iOS, then a web app like MetaMask) and an SDK.
* The company will promote the PumaPay token to e-commerce and online service providers, starting with digital content creators. PumaPay’s business strategy relies on early adopters, launch partners, the ‘PumaPay Pride’ (a hub where users can search for businesses that have integrated the token), and third-party extentions. The two main launch partners (those described more extensively in the whitepaper, and whose partner integrations appear explicitely on the company’s roadmap) are ImLive.com (pay-per-minute private live shows), and ChatMaker (messenger app with direct marketing). These platforms, which are making significant changes so as to accept PMA, will introduce the token to their vast user bases and provide the proof of concept for use of PumaPay in skills-related marketplaces (like Fiverr, Upwork, etc.).
* The first version ERC223 of the token will function as a means of payment on launch partners platforms immediately after the TGE. The company plans to introduce the final, fully-functional version of its token, which is planned to be on ORBS or EOS, within six months after the TGE. (Holders of V1 will be able to convert to V2 via a special smart contract). It is unclear why or how the company plans to migrate its system to a different blockchain 6 months after the TGE.
* Roadmap lists the following milestones:
– Q1 2018: PumaPay TGE, PMA Token V1.0, Integration V1.0 with ImLive.com
– Q3 2018: Testing next gen. blockchain, Integration V1.0 with ChatMaker
– Q4 2018: PMA Token V2.0, Android Wallet V2.0, SDK I (NodeJS) V2.0, Integration V2.0 with ImLive.com, Integration V2.0 with Early Adopters
– Q1 2019: Chrome Wallet V2.0, iOS Wallet V2.0, Integration V2.0 with ChatMaker, SDK II (Java, Python, …) V2.0

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.0
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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

* The whitepaper gives a standard list of token-sale and company related risks, and links to a professional 17-page “Legal Considerations, Risks and Disclaimer” document, seeking to absolve the company of any liability. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and are not viewed as securities, but also lists persons and entities prohibited from participation in the token sale (citizens and residents of South Korea, China, or any other restrictive jurisdiction).
* The token appears to have some future utility value (even if one initially or partly aimed at a shady industry – other brands associated with PumaPay include Fashion TV and Backpack), but the platform is not nearly ready yet, and the plans to migrate to a different blockchain 6 months after the ICO make this even more complicated.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.6
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.

Company and Team

* The company, which is actually called Decentralized Vision, was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Gibraltar. [Unrelated to another company by the same name (www.distributed.vision) located in England.]
* Team comprised of 12 members (10 in whitepaper, 12 on the website) and 4 advisors (which are presented before the team members, both in the whitepaper and on the website). Whitepaper gives a job title and short description of the background of each team member, as well as LinkedIn profile links.
* The overall capabilities of the team is fairly balanced between skills that align with technology and business development. Investigating the LinkedIn profiles (C-level executives) shows that the proficiencies align with the descriptions and that there are no significant concerns with team commitment. There are individuals on the team that have had experience developing smart contracts and one particular team member has worked with the Blockchain team at IBM Client Innovation Center Benelux.
* Advisors include Uriel Peled (co-founder of Orbs and CoinTree), Dovi Frances (Managing Partner at SGVC), George Giaglis (Professor at AUEB; Blockchain/Fintech Research), and Muly Litvak (whose LinkedIn profile is empty aside from listing him as a “gallerist , internet entrapenour” in Israel). According to an article from Jan 2014 in a major Israeli newspaper, “Muly Litvak, who has a gallery named after him at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, operates the site Imlive” (one of the project’s two major launch partners), which is described as a “Major Porn Chat Site”. [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/.premium-israeli-art-patron-runs-porn-chat-site-1.5312373]. Given the company’s position regarding adult entertainment as the gateway to mainstream use of cryptocurrency, Mr. Litvak’s experience and entrepreneurship are considered invaluable to the project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.0
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
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

* Token Sale Apr 26 – May 7.
* Tokens will be sold at a fixed price denominated in ETH. Bonus structure goes from 50,000 PMA/ETH during the first 24 hours, to 25,000 PMA/ETH from the 13th day onward. A special 5% bonus will be given to contributors of at least $5,000 USD.
* The total number of tokens sold in the TGE will comprise 30% of the total supply (including pre-sold tokens). Another 30% (same amount as sold in the TGE) will be held by the Company, 17% will be distributed to launch partners and early adopters, 13% will be be distributed to advisors, or allocated for bounties and bonuses, and 10% will go to the founders and team (gradually vested over a 12-month period).
* Soft Cap: $15M. (The soft cap has already been met.)
* TGE proceeds will be used for Protocol Implementation (40%), Development and Operational Costs (27%), Advisors, Consultants, and TGE costs (20%), Founders and Team (10%), and a Liquidity Pool (3%). It is entirely unclear why the founders are keeping not only 10% of the tokens, but also 10% of the TGE proceeds, or what the 3% liquidity pool is supposed to be. And is the cost of their advisors and consultants really at least $3M (based on soft cap) plus tokens? Furthermore, regarding the 40% going towards Protocol Implementation, the WP associates this with strategic partnerships and protocol adoption, giving the following raise-dependent milestones (in USD):
— $20M – $40M – Executing strategic partnership with launch partners ImLive and ChatMaker. Executing strategy for disrupting online services marketplaces.
— $40M – $70M – Penetration and disruption of online ecommerce platforms.
— $70M+ – Setting the focus offline as well, getting merchants and offline entities to adopt the protocol.
The company states that these are the funds required to disrupt its target markets and compete with traditional online payment systems, a process which includes working closely with the launch partners as they adjust their platforms to accomodate PumaPay, and as their clients make the transition to the new payment mechanism.

Product

* PumaPay aims to design a blockchain-based infrastructure that is as “scalable, flexible and accessible as payment cards, absent their inherent flaws and disadvantages.” Additionally, “By promoting the protocol to high transaction volume industries and by providing a powerful and flexible PullPayment protocol, PumaPay hopes to become the base layer for cryptocurrency payments throughout the world.”
* At the heart of PumaPay’s PullPayment protocol is a smart-contract architecture that allows for “pulling”, rather than just “pushing” funds. Although not fully explained in the whitepaper, the purpose of this is presumably to facilitate complex transactions including recurring payments, pay-per-use, etc., by enabling smart contract activation by the recipient. The long-term vision appears to be the implementation of blockchain payment mechanisms that more accurately reflect commonly used traditional ones.
* The PumaPay SDK is planned to provide utilities and code samples for merchants, a repository of pre-signed and pre-vetted modules, and easy access to transaction data.
* Use Cases provided show how businesses can use PullContract templates built from parameterizable modules (called Authorizers) to charge for subscriptions, timed use, etc. The primary advantage appears to be the convenience of ready-made smart-contract templates and modules. However, the technology itself is not clearly defined.
* Launch partners include ImLive.com, an adult entertainment website (charging customers on a pay-per-minute basis for private live shows), and ChatMaker, a messenger app that allows businesses to send targeted direct messages to users. These are the only two described more extensively in the whitepaper, and whose integrations appear explicitely in the roadmap provided on the company’s website, but the whitepaper lists 8 additional partners, including Mr. Skin, a website that, according to Wikipedia, “specializes in locating, posting and rating instances of female nudity in television and film”. The company emphasizes that it has dozens of early adopters and launch partners (which will be introduced close to the TGE), in various industries, all of which have a significant user base and are in a good position to disrupt their market.
* PumaPay’s position is unique in that it targets the adult entertainment industry with a universal merchant infrastructure that can expand beyond it. As such, it also faces competition both from the growing use of other cryptocurrencies in adult entertainment, and from other universal blockchain-based merchant solutions.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

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:
3.4

Use of Blockchain

* At the heart of PumaPay’s PullPayment protocol is a smart-contract architecture that allows for “pulling”, rather than just “pushing” funds. Although not fully explained in the whitepaper, the purpose of this is presumably to facilitate complex transactions including recurring payments, pay-per-use, etc., by enabling smart contract activation by the recipient (i.e., the merchant or provider rather than the customer). This development is aimed to address the requirements of modern commerce, and to have the added advantage of placing the transaction fees on the provider.
* Other than the “pulling” of funds, the platform’s primary advantage appears to be the convenience of ready-made smart-contract templates and modules. However, the technology itself remains unclear and there is no in-depth discussion of how exactly the platform operates.
* Design specifications are not provided, and the project’s Github repo is totally empty, despite the the claim that it will be free and open-source. There is no analysis of or comparison to existing solutions (e.g., Oraclize, Ethereum Alarm Clock). The PumaPay token “will initially be built using the ERC223 standard interface but will extend the money transfer process so that advanced payment methods can be utilized.”
* PumaPay plans on introducing two versions of its token: the first – an ERC223 token which will function as a means of payment on launch partners’ platforms immediately after the TGE, and the second – a fully-functional, ORBS or EOS based version, to be introduced within six months after the TGE. (Holders of V1 will be able to convert to V2 via a special smart contract).

Category Breakdown
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?

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.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.0

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is concise at 32 pages. The technology is lacking some critical details of the platform. For example, it is stated that after the token generating event, the PMA tokens will be transferred to a “next generation blockchain” which will either be ORBS or EOS. There is no significant discussion regarding the choice of either of these blockchain platforms, and since this will be foundational to the operation of PumaPay, the lack of discussion regarding these platforms is concerning. Only a couple sentences are included for the discussion of each of these platforms. This also raises the question as to why the PMA token is created based on the ERC223 token protocol in the first place instead of simply beginning development on the intended platform. It is reasonable to assume that this decision was made in order to generate funds before the final product is made. Nevertheless, the business plan is presented with a great degree of detail. There is thorough discussion with regards to problems the current payment system and how the protocol that PumaPay is proposing would simplify the process and reduce costs. A significant portion of the document discusses the use cases of the protocol. Overall the whitepaper is fairly easy to read, concise, and thorough with respect to the business plan, but is missing critical elements of the technology of the platform.

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

* Main development is of the PMA token and PullContract mechanism, along with Wallet apps (Android first, then iOS, then a web app like MetaMask) and an SDK.
* The company will promote the PumaPay token to e-commerce and online service providers, starting with digital content creators. PumaPay’s business strategy relies on early adopters, launch partners, the ‘PumaPay Pride’ (a hub where users can search for businesses that have integrated the token), and third-party extentions. The two main launch partners (those described more extensively in the whitepaper, and whose partner integrations appear explicitely on the company’s roadmap) are ImLive.com (pay-per-minute private live shows), and ChatMaker (messenger app with direct marketing). These platforms, which are making significant changes so as to accept PMA, will introduce the token to their vast user bases and provide the proof of concept for use of PumaPay in skills-related marketplaces (like Fiverr, Upwork, etc.).
* The first version ERC223 of the token will function as a means of payment on launch partners platforms immediately after the TGE. The company plans to introduce the final, fully-functional version of its token, which is planned to be on ORBS or EOS, within six months after the TGE. (Holders of V1 will be able to convert to V2 via a special smart contract). It is unclear why or how the company plans to migrate its system to a different blockchain 6 months after the TGE.
* Roadmap lists the following milestones:
– Q1 2018: PumaPay TGE, PMA Token V1.0, Integration V1.0 with ImLive.com
– Q3 2018: Testing next gen. blockchain, Integration V1.0 with ChatMaker
– Q4 2018: PMA Token V2.0, Android Wallet V2.0, SDK I (NodeJS) V2.0, Integration V2.0 with ImLive.com, Integration V2.0 with Early Adopters
– Q1 2019: Chrome Wallet V2.0, iOS Wallet V2.0, Integration V2.0 with ChatMaker, SDK II (Java, Python, …) V2.0

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.
Roadmap Score:
3.6

Compliance

* The whitepaper gives a standard list of token-sale and company related risks, and links to a professional 17-page “Legal Considerations, Risks and Disclaimer” document, seeking to absolve the company of any liability. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and are not viewed as securities, but also lists persons and entities prohibited from participation in the token sale (citizens and residents of South Korea, China, or any other restrictive jurisdiction).
* The token appears to have some future utility value (even if one initially or partly aimed at a shady industry – other brands associated with PumaPay include Fashion TV and Backpack), but the platform is not nearly ready yet, and the plans to migrate to a different blockchain 6 months after the ICO make this even more complicated.

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
3.0

Company and Team

* The company, which is actually called Decentralized Vision, was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Gibraltar. [Unrelated to another company by the same name (www.distributed.vision) located in England.]
* Team comprised of 12 members (10 in whitepaper, 12 on the website) and 4 advisors (which are presented before the team members, both in the whitepaper and on the website). Whitepaper gives a job title and short description of the background of each team member, as well as LinkedIn profile links.
* The overall capabilities of the team is fairly balanced between skills that align with technology and business development. Investigating the LinkedIn profiles (C-level executives) shows that the proficiencies align with the descriptions and that there are no significant concerns with team commitment. There are individuals on the team that have had experience developing smart contracts and one particular team member has worked with the Blockchain team at IBM Client Innovation Center Benelux.
* Advisors include Uriel Peled (co-founder of Orbs and CoinTree), Dovi Frances (Managing Partner at SGVC), George Giaglis (Professor at AUEB; Blockchain/Fintech Research), and Muly Litvak (whose LinkedIn profile is empty aside from listing him as a “gallerist , internet entrapenour” in Israel). According to an article from Jan 2014 in a major Israeli newspaper, “Muly Litvak, who has a gallery named after him at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, operates the site Imlive” (one of the project’s two major launch partners), which is described as a “Major Porn Chat Site”. [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/.premium-israeli-art-patron-runs-porn-chat-site-1.5312373]. Given the company’s position regarding adult entertainment as the gateway to mainstream use of cryptocurrency, Mr. Litvak’s experience and entrepreneurship are considered invaluable to the project.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
3.6

Token Sale

* Token Sale Apr 26 – May 7.
* Tokens will be sold at a fixed price denominated in ETH. Bonus structure goes from 50,000 PMA/ETH during the first 24 hours, to 25,000 PMA/ETH from the 13th day onward. A special 5% bonus will be given to contributors of at least $5,000 USD.
* The total number of tokens sold in the TGE will comprise 30% of the total supply (including pre-sold tokens). Another 30% (same amount as sold in the TGE) will be held by the Company, 17% will be distributed to launch partners and early adopters, 13% will be be distributed to advisors, or allocated for bounties and bonuses, and 10% will go to the founders and team (gradually vested over a 12-month period).
* Soft Cap: $15M. (The soft cap has already been met.)
* TGE proceeds will be used for Protocol Implementation (40%), Development and Operational Costs (27%), Advisors, Consultants, and TGE costs (20%), Founders and Team (10%), and a Liquidity Pool (3%). It is entirely unclear why the founders are keeping not only 10% of the tokens, but also 10% of the TGE proceeds, or what the 3% liquidity pool is supposed to be. And is the cost of their advisors and consultants really at least $3M (based on soft cap) plus tokens? Furthermore, regarding the 40% going towards Protocol Implementation, the WP associates this with strategic partnerships and protocol adoption, giving the following raise-dependent milestones (in USD):
— $20M – $40M – Executing strategic partnership with launch partners ImLive and ChatMaker. Executing strategy for disrupting online services marketplaces.
— $40M – $70M – Penetration and disruption of online ecommerce platforms.
— $70M+ – Setting the focus offline as well, getting merchants and offline entities to adopt the protocol.
The company states that these are the funds required to disrupt its target markets and compete with traditional online payment systems, a process which includes working closely with the launch partners as they adjust their platforms to accomodate PumaPay, and as their clients make the transition to the new payment mechanism.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
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:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website