Basic Rating

  • Taylor

  • Taylor is an easy-to-use service that combines a cryptocurrency trading signal service with a mobile trading app where users can enter into automated trading opportunities.
  • 2.2

Rating Insights

Taylor is a subscription-based trading assistant service targeted towards people that are deterred by the complexities of participating in the cryptocurrency trading market. The service is used as a signaling tool to inform users of trading opportunities by using a proprietary market-monitor which communicates to the mobile application. Initial exchange support includes Bittrex and Poloniex. The idea of Taylor came into fruition based off a market monitoring bot and a Telegram channel called “DumpAlert Channel” that was created by the founder of the Taylor project.

Category Rating

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

Product

Taylor proposes that the major difference between their service and its competitors is that Taylor incorporates a signal service and the ability to conduct all trade through an app. Currently there is a proof of concept for the platform. The efficacy of the trading strategy has yet to be proven, or at least, a quantitative evaluation of its performance is absent in the whitepaper and on their website.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
1.2
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

The TAY token follows the ERC20 token protocol. The need for creating a custom token is questionable, as the only benefit of holding TAY tokens is a discount on the monthly subscription fee, access to premium features such as notification priority, increased trading limits, and access to beta features. Purchasing TAY tokens would primarily be an investment towards the proprietary market trading solution and the mobile (and in the future, desktop and web) application, which at the moment are yet to be developed, and the trading strategy has not been thoroughly compared with other competing solutions.

Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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.
1.6
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is short at 11 pages (only 9 pages containing pertinent details of the project) and lacks discussion with regards to many aspects of a typical whitepaper. As the trading strategy is proprietary, there is almost no mention of the technical details of the service. The entirety of the business model is roughly a quarter page long and is significantly vague.

Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
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.?

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
2.4
Roadmap

Roadmap

Currently, the developmental milestones that have been reached involve the creation of the signal bot and a proof-of-concept desktop application, along with a Telegram channel with 1100+ members. The mobile app UX design is currently in development and the first version of the application is set to launch in Q2 2018. The desktop and web apps are planned to be released in Q4 2018 and Q2 2019, respectively.

Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
2.2
Compliance

Compliance

Taylor states that “[they] understand and respect the regulations imposed by some countries”. The specific details of how Taylor plans to deal with regulatory agencies is not discussed in the whitepaper. US citizens are prohibited from participating in the token sale. The value of the token is tied to the success of the Taylor platform and does not have intrinsic value.

Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
3.2
Company and Team

Company and Team

Team information is not included in the whitepaper but can be found on the Taylor website. Team member descriptions are provided only for the 2 founders, while for the rest (11 people), all that is given is a profile picture, job title and location, and a link to social media profiles. The size of the team is somewhat large considering the scale of the project. The market trading solution is stated to be already operational, thus most of the developmental challenges would be related to creating an app for mobile, desktop, and web, all of which is not significantly demanding for an experienced programmer. The current team has more than enough resources to accomplish the technological milestones. The Taylor team also has individuals with a background in business, as well as a lawyer. Whether they will be capable of ensuring success for Taylor from a business perspective is unclear since the business model of the project needs to be more established.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
2.6
Token Sale

Token Sale

The total number of TAY tokens is 10 million (75% for sale, 10% for the founders, 7% for the referral and bounty program, and 7% for the team and advisors). The hardcap will be approximately 5960.86 ETH and the softcap will be 500 ETH, where 1 TAY = 0.0007 ETH. The token sale takes place on February 19, 2018.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
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?

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

Product

Taylor proposes that the major difference between their service and its competitors is that Taylor incorporates a signal service and the ability to conduct all trade through an app. Currently there is a proof of concept for the platform. The efficacy of the trading strategy has yet to be proven, or at least, a quantitative evaluation of its performance is absent in the whitepaper and on their website.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much 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

The TAY token follows the ERC20 token protocol. The need for creating a custom token is questionable, as the only benefit of holding TAY tokens is a discount on the monthly subscription fee, access to premium features such as notification priority, increased trading limits, and access to beta features. Purchasing TAY tokens would primarily be an investment towards the proprietary market trading solution and the mobile (and in the future, desktop and web) application, which at the moment are yet to be developed, and the trading strategy has not been thoroughly compared with other competing solutions.

Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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

The whitepaper is short at 11 pages (only 9 pages containing pertinent details of the project) and lacks discussion with regards to many aspects of a typical whitepaper. As the trading strategy is proprietary, there is almost no mention of the technical details of the service. The entirety of the business model is roughly a quarter page long and is significantly vague.

Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
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.?

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Roadmap

Currently, the developmental milestones that have been reached involve the creation of the signal bot and a proof-of-concept desktop application, along with a Telegram channel with 1100+ members. The mobile app UX design is currently in development and the first version of the application is set to launch in Q2 2018. The desktop and web apps are planned to be released in Q4 2018 and Q2 2019, respectively.

Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Compliance

Taylor states that “[they] understand and respect the regulations imposed by some countries”. The specific details of how Taylor plans to deal with regulatory agencies is not discussed in the whitepaper. US citizens are prohibited from participating in the token sale. The value of the token is tied to the success of the Taylor platform and does not have intrinsic value.

Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Company and Team

Team information is not included in the whitepaper but can be found on the Taylor website. Team member descriptions are provided only for the 2 founders, while for the rest (11 people), all that is given is a profile picture, job title and location, and a link to social media profiles. The size of the team is somewhat large considering the scale of the project. The market trading solution is stated to be already operational, thus most of the developmental challenges would be related to creating an app for mobile, desktop, and web, all of which is not significantly demanding for an experienced programmer. The current team has more than enough resources to accomplish the technological milestones. The Taylor team also has individuals with a background in business, as well as a lawyer. Whether they will be capable of ensuring success for Taylor from a business perspective is unclear since the business model of the project needs to be more established.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Token Sale

The total number of TAY tokens is 10 million (75% for sale, 10% for the founders, 7% for the referral and bounty program, and 7% for the team and advisors). The hardcap will be approximately 5960.86 ETH and the softcap will be 500 ETH, where 1 TAY = 0.0007 ETH. The token sale takes place on February 19, 2018.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
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?

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Read Reviews