Basic Rating

2.3
  • SPiCE

  • SPiCE is a venture capital fund created to provide its participants with quality investments into crypto assets.
  • 2.3

Rating Insights

SPiCE is a venture capital fund created to provide its participants with quality investments into crypto assets. Project will be attractive for non-professional investors, who has money to invest, but doesn’t know how to valuate projects. SPiCE can be used as a filter of bad projects. There’re a lot of scams at the ICO’s market and sometimes it’s very difficult to clearly understand goals of the project’s founders. Implementation of blockchain is seems to be actually useless. It’s not necessary for SPiCE project to be successful.

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
2.0
Product

Product

Array

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?

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
1.4
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

Going through the company’s documentation, there seems to be absolutely no reason to put this project behind a blockchain. It will gain nothing, it needs to be thoroughly secured, something that requires the right personnel, a thing the SPiCE team doesn’t seem to have. The main purpose behind this ICO seems to be through the definition of an ICO and how it is used as a tool to raise immense amounts of capital without proper traditional due diligence.

Blockchain Development

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
Need for Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
2.8
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

at 33 pages long, the white paper provides a solid overall plan for platform development, addresses key functionality, but does not provide specifics or details of implementation. Appears to be well thought out as a business plan, but also a bit still ‘in the air’. Another important note is the fact that the whitepaper is only accessible if you sign up through the ICO’s site, or via an external source. This seems to be somewhat shady or at least misguided.

Comprehensiveness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

1.0
N/A
1 - I still don't get it.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
2.8
Roadmap

Roadmap

The development roadmap is extremely optimistic and perhaps even detached from reality. The business side of it consists of formulas, statistics and a lot of buzzwords that might indicate a deeper understanding of the economic environment of the traditional world of finance in collision with the cryptocurrency world, yet the technological side is extremely lacking, and this, in accordance with their whitepaper could indicate that the team behind the ICO cares first about raising money and then about their product. Moreover, investors have tons of restrictions in terms of using tokens and it make this project even worse for community.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
2.0
Compliance

Compliance

SPiCE’s token is planned to be used as security in the near future, as more and more crypto exchanges are applying for ATS licenses, and for now with an existing regulations and laws it will be very difficult for SPiCE to expand their business widely.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
2.2
Company and Team

Company and Team

Team section looks very poor. Lack of information is obvious and there are only 3 team members — all of them are financial specialists. To develop all that has been declared in their whitepaper, the SPiCe team will need more technical specialists. Furthermore, the skill set balance is nonexistent – there seems to be zero blockchain talent, in an ICO that aims to raise $100M. Moreover, the team members are Israeli citizens, yet company operates under UK laws.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
2.8
Token Sale

Token Sale

Crowdsale is divided in two separate stages:  Pre-Sale. Price per token is equal to 1 USD and total token supply will be calculated as following: (Raised funds / Token’s price) * Multiplier (bonus up to 30 %).Pre-Sale investors are not allowed to sell or transfer owned tokens within six month period.  Main Sale. At this stage terms of ICO will remain the same except bonuses. There are no bonuses at this stage. ICO HardCap is — $100 millions, which is quite a sum for an ICO, but relatively not astronomic in the world of VC funds. Allocation structure: 85% of issued tokens will be available for ICO and 15 % will allocated between partners, advisers and founders in the following proportion:  7.5 % to the Founders of SPiCE  7.5 % to all their advisers and partners. The number of overall SPiCe token is also not available, which is not a good sign of transparency.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Product

Array

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?

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Use of Blockchain

Going through the company’s documentation, there seems to be absolutely no reason to put this project behind a blockchain. It will gain nothing, it needs to be thoroughly secured, something that requires the right personnel, a thing the SPiCE team doesn’t seem to have. The main purpose behind this ICO seems to be through the definition of an ICO and how it is used as a tool to raise immense amounts of capital without proper traditional due diligence.

Blockchain Development

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
Need for Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

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

Whitepaper

at 33 pages long, the white paper provides a solid overall plan for platform development, addresses key functionality, but does not provide specifics or details of implementation. Appears to be well thought out as a business plan, but also a bit still ‘in the air’. Another important note is the fact that the whitepaper is only accessible if you sign up through the ICO’s site, or via an external source. This seems to be somewhat shady or at least misguided.

Comprehensiveness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

1.0
N/A
1 - I still don't get it.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Roadmap

The development roadmap is extremely optimistic and perhaps even detached from reality. The business side of it consists of formulas, statistics and a lot of buzzwords that might indicate a deeper understanding of the economic environment of the traditional world of finance in collision with the cryptocurrency world, yet the technological side is extremely lacking, and this, in accordance with their whitepaper could indicate that the team behind the ICO cares first about raising money and then about their product. Moreover, investors have tons of restrictions in terms of using tokens and it make this project even worse for community.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Compliance

SPiCE’s token is planned to be used as security in the near future, as more and more crypto exchanges are applying for ATS licenses, and for now with an existing regulations and laws it will be very difficult for SPiCE to expand their business widely.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Company and Team

Team section looks very poor. Lack of information is obvious and there are only 3 team members — all of them are financial specialists. To develop all that has been declared in their whitepaper, the SPiCe team will need more technical specialists. Furthermore, the skill set balance is nonexistent – there seems to be zero blockchain talent, in an ICO that aims to raise $100M. Moreover, the team members are Israeli citizens, yet company operates under UK laws.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.

Token Sale

Crowdsale is divided in two separate stages:  Pre-Sale. Price per token is equal to 1 USD and total token supply will be calculated as following: (Raised funds / Token’s price) * Multiplier (bonus up to 30 %).Pre-Sale investors are not allowed to sell or transfer owned tokens within six month period.  Main Sale. At this stage terms of ICO will remain the same except bonuses. There are no bonuses at this stage. ICO HardCap is — $100 millions, which is quite a sum for an ICO, but relatively not astronomic in the world of VC funds. Allocation structure: 85% of issued tokens will be available for ICO and 15 % will allocated between partners, advisers and founders in the following proportion:  7.5 % to the Founders of SPiCE  7.5 % to all their advisers and partners. The number of overall SPiCe token is also not available, which is not a good sign of transparency.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Most Read Reviews