Basic Rating

  • Thrive

  • Thrive is a Blockchain-based Marketplace to buy and sell Advertising at very low fees. People get paid for data sharing and for reviewing the quality of each website in the ecosystem.
  • 3.0

Rating Insights

Thrive aims to be a blockchain-based advertising marketplace with a community-based business model, wherein all active contributors – consumers, reviewers, advertisers and publishers – are capable of improving their economic performance. Thrive aims to disrupt the digital advertising industry with a decentralized P2P digital advertising marketplace regulated via a transparent and meritocratic reward model, and offers four main categories of services: * Digital Profile Management – all actors in the platform will be in line with KYC (know your customer) and AML (anti money laundering) standards. All data will be treated anonymously and secured by Thrives Blockchain.
* DMP Services – data management including onboarding, modelling, activation, predictive retargeting, prospecting, audience analytics and customer segmentation.
* Ad Exchange – based on a RTB (Real Time Bidding) system integrated with a portal that allows publishers to decide which typology of advertisers they accept and the pricing for each banner, CPM rate, the number of banners, and other technical details. Advertisers can set the maximum bid value and fine tune the details to optimize the use of banners and ads.
* Thrive Labs AI: Artificial Intelligence used to consolidate and process data collected by the community. Data processing is done by linking reviewers data with incoming traffic data, providing concrete guidance for site curators to improve their users’ experience.
Competitors: AdEx, AdChain, Basic Attention Token, Ad shares, Bitclave, Papyrus. Non-blockchain competition: Google DoubleClick, AppNexus, Criteo, OpenX or AOLs Marketplace.
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: DMP services and Thrive labs AI.

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
3.2
Product

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

Does this solution have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation and IP

Is there (patentable) innovation and intellectual property?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
2.4
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own digital advertising marketplace/exchange and there is intention for the platform to become fully decentralized eventually, operating via open APIs. There is a disruptive advantage as it would provide digital advertising content via commitment to the blockchain, as well as monetization opportunities via the P2P marketplace. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace. However, the same goals can be accomplished with ETH alone, as well as in a completely decentralized manner. The project is potentially disruptive since there is currently a very large and growing amount of digital advertising content being created and posted online.

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

Is it safeguarded against misuse and corruption?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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)

Does the token provide holders with value other than as an investment?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

Does the solution contribute to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
4.0
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is clean, concise, professional, and fairly easy to read. The whitepaper contains a good balance of media and text (graphic/verbal explanation), and describes the product use cases, value propositions, competitors, company strategy, services, roadmap, team, ICO info, and terms & conditions. The whitepaper is very transparent with regard to competition and legal considerations. The provided legal disclaimer is detailed, states that THRT is not meant to be a security offering in any country, details the review process for KYC/AML, and uses language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. The business and technology plans are explained well with examples.

Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
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 architectecure? Does it address implementational challenges?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
2.6
Development Roadmap (Biz & Tech Combined)

Development Roadmap (Biz & Tech Combined)

The roadmap vision is set and provides vague generic milestones, e.g., “Smart contract test net”, “Public Token round”, “Beta testing”, “Mass launch and ramp up” etc. Platform development is outlined on a monthly to quarterly basis and provides no information on the steps required to complete each milestone. The team’s main focus over the last few months has been to develop a smart-contract prototype, test it, conduct a private sale, then prepare to conduct a public ICO. The vast majority of the platform developement will occur after the ICO with a full platform release planned for Dec. 2018. Meanwhile, the GITHUB REPO is public, but contains only a basic smart-contract for the ICO and has little to no activity. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and then to further develop the goals of the project. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

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

Does it seem as though a lot of know-how and experience went into the development plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Is the project currently sufficiently far along in its development plan (relative to its vision and plans)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
3.0
Compliance

Compliance

The THRT-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Thrive platform, as it is used for in platform rewards and for trading the digital advertising content on the P2P marketplace. The Thrive service should be released well after the ICO but there is a test platform ready. It seems that as of now the company’s main focus is to complete the ICO fundraising, then the Thrive P2P marketplace. The provided legal disclaimer is detailed, states that THRT is not meant to be a security offering in any country, details the review process for KYC/AML and uses language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. The company addresses compliance via auditing by a partner law firm, and by employing a KYC/AML whitelist registration process for ICO participation, including a strict limit on accredited investors from the US. The THRT-tokens will be usable as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges for several months before platform launch.

Token Utility (intrinsic value through usage)

Is there a concrete business plan (vs. market descriptions, general sentiments, and fluff)?

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

Is the business model realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token / Smart-Contract Infrastructure Readiness

Are the solution's revenue streams, profit mechanisms, key KPIs, etc. clear and easy enough to understand?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

Is the project raising an amount of money that makes sense given what it needs to reach profitability?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review or Agreement

Is it safe from legal, moral or investor abuse?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
2.6
Company and Team

Company and Team

An established team, whose members have experience with tech, computer science, social media, blockchain development, UX/UI design/engineering, sales, business development and marketing. The team has one blockchain developer and is seeking additional ones to hire; there is also only one full-stack developer. No core team members have any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contract, or cryptocurrency projects, though two advisors do have relevant previous experience. LinkedIn profile links with verifiable work experience and credentials are provided for all team members and advisors. Nearly all core team members are not fully dedicated to the Thrive project – three chief members are working on two other projects together. The team is lacking a bit in engineering and blockchain development capabilites, but this may be compensated for by the advisors’ experience to some extent. There is a claim of partnerships with Flazio, Juanafil Group, TEJU Fiance, 0rigin (decentralized marktplace developers for sharing economies without intermediaries), WH Partners (Malt-base law firm).
8 Core Employees. 5 Advisors. 5 Partnerships (including Legal, financing, and blockchain protocols).
Positives: If partnership with 0rigin is strong this is very valuable to project development.
Negatives: Only one member of the core team has any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contracts, or crypto-currency projects and almost all members are dedicated to other projects outside of Thrive.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

What is the level of presence, added value, and commitment of the advisory board?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Are there enough sufficiently experienced blockchain architects and developers on the team?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
3.2
Token Sale

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 reasonably enough to carry out the majority of 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Media Presence and Following

Is the ICO well planned in terms of time, phases and scenarios?

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

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

Does this solution have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation and IP

Is there (patentable) innovation and intellectual property?

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

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own digital advertising marketplace/exchange and there is intention for the platform to become fully decentralized eventually, operating via open APIs. There is a disruptive advantage as it would provide digital advertising content via commitment to the blockchain, as well as monetization opportunities via the P2P marketplace. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace. However, the same goals can be accomplished with ETH alone, as well as in a completely decentralized manner. The project is potentially disruptive since there is currently a very large and growing amount of digital advertising content being created and posted online.

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

Is it safeguarded against misuse and corruption?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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)

Does the token provide holders with value other than as an investment?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

Does the solution contribute to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is clean, concise, professional, and fairly easy to read. The whitepaper contains a good balance of media and text (graphic/verbal explanation), and describes the product use cases, value propositions, competitors, company strategy, services, roadmap, team, ICO info, and terms & conditions. The whitepaper is very transparent with regard to competition and legal considerations. The provided legal disclaimer is detailed, states that THRT is not meant to be a security offering in any country, details the review process for KYC/AML, and uses language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. The business and technology plans are explained well with examples.

Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
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 architectecure? Does it address implementational challenges?

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

Development Roadmap (Biz & Tech Combined)

The roadmap vision is set and provides vague generic milestones, e.g., “Smart contract test net”, “Public Token round”, “Beta testing”, “Mass launch and ramp up” etc. Platform development is outlined on a monthly to quarterly basis and provides no information on the steps required to complete each milestone. The team’s main focus over the last few months has been to develop a smart-contract prototype, test it, conduct a private sale, then prepare to conduct a public ICO. The vast majority of the platform developement will occur after the ICO with a full platform release planned for Dec. 2018. Meanwhile, the GITHUB REPO is public, but contains only a basic smart-contract for the ICO and has little to no activity. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and then to further develop the goals of the project. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

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

Does it seem as though a lot of know-how and experience went into the development plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Is the project currently sufficiently far along in its development plan (relative to its vision and plans)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Compliance

The THRT-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Thrive platform, as it is used for in platform rewards and for trading the digital advertising content on the P2P marketplace. The Thrive service should be released well after the ICO but there is a test platform ready. It seems that as of now the company’s main focus is to complete the ICO fundraising, then the Thrive P2P marketplace. The provided legal disclaimer is detailed, states that THRT is not meant to be a security offering in any country, details the review process for KYC/AML and uses language that aims to absolve the company of any liability. The company addresses compliance via auditing by a partner law firm, and by employing a KYC/AML whitelist registration process for ICO participation, including a strict limit on accredited investors from the US. The THRT-tokens will be usable as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges for several months before platform launch.

Token Utility (intrinsic value through usage)

Is there a concrete business plan (vs. market descriptions, general sentiments, and fluff)?

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

Is the business model realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token / Smart-Contract Infrastructure Readiness

Are the solution's revenue streams, profit mechanisms, key KPIs, etc. clear and easy enough to understand?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

Is the project raising an amount of money that makes sense given what it needs to reach profitability?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review or Agreement

Is it safe from legal, moral or investor abuse?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Company and Team

An established team, whose members have experience with tech, computer science, social media, blockchain development, UX/UI design/engineering, sales, business development and marketing. The team has one blockchain developer and is seeking additional ones to hire; there is also only one full-stack developer. No core team members have any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contract, or cryptocurrency projects, though two advisors do have relevant previous experience. LinkedIn profile links with verifiable work experience and credentials are provided for all team members and advisors. Nearly all core team members are not fully dedicated to the Thrive project – three chief members are working on two other projects together. The team is lacking a bit in engineering and blockchain development capabilites, but this may be compensated for by the advisors’ experience to some extent. There is a claim of partnerships with Flazio, Juanafil Group, TEJU Fiance, 0rigin (decentralized marktplace developers for sharing economies without intermediaries), WH Partners (Malt-base law firm).
8 Core Employees. 5 Advisors. 5 Partnerships (including Legal, financing, and blockchain protocols).
Positives: If partnership with 0rigin is strong this is very valuable to project development.
Negatives: Only one member of the core team has any previous experience with blockchain, smart-contracts, or crypto-currency projects and almost all members are dedicated to other projects outside of Thrive.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

What is the level of presence, added value, and commitment of the advisory board?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Are there enough sufficiently experienced blockchain architects and developers on the team?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

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 reasonably enough to carry out the majority of 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Media Presence and Following

Is the ICO well planned in terms of time, phases and scenarios?

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Read Reviews