Transcodium

Transcoding is the process of converting from one file format to another desirable and compatible format. 

About Transcodium

Transcodium aims to provide a peer-to-peer decentralized platform for file editing, transcoding, and distribution, relying on distributed computational power. The project aims to create a global market for users willing to rent their idle machines to be used as workers – a main aspect of Transcodium is that when processing is complete, the worker (processor) is rewarded with TNS tokens, so as to create a computational power crypto-based economy. Transcodium also plans to provide a Lending service for workers, where a fee will be charged on the interest paid to the lender, of which half will be the blockchain transaction fee, and the other half will go to the company. Transcodiums wallet will have built-in exchange capabilities for trading TNS and other cryptocurrencies, with exchange fees ranging from 0.1% to 0.2%, depending on the volume of trade.Competitors: Vantrix Transcoder, Vantage transcoding, MediaCoder, Coconut Transcoding
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Integrating the power of blockchain technology into slow and costly non-blockchain centralized legacy solutions.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
Product
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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?

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

Product

A centralized cloud platform is currently available, and a demo platform is available for trial download on the Transcodium website. The Transcodium platform is scheduled to be further developed and launched after the ICO, including the wallet and the beta, as well as the full blockchain based solution (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the product, given an estimated needed growth for transcoding technology of almost 20% compounded anually for the next three years. The potential / target user-base is very large – as much as 1/3 of online activity is dedicated to video content which needs transcoding services.
There is large legacy competition and competition over time will greatly stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues, given the size of the target audience.
Competitors: Vantrix Transcoder, Vantage transcoding, MediaCoder, Coconut Transcoding.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.0
Use of Blockchain
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?

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?

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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it has developed its own app for peer-to-peer decentralized file editing, transcoding, and distribution, based on distributed computational power.
There is a disruptive advantage as, in theory, such a marketplace would allow those without access to large amounts of computing power locally, to access it globally via a decentralized blockchain system, and since such applications are currently centralized.
There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent dapp, however in theory this could be accomplished with ETH as well.
The platform will use decentralized blockchain technology for data storage, however master nodes will remain centralized for ‘legal reasons’, due to sensitive nature of the data being stored.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

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?

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

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is simple, yet professional and concise. Somewhat short at 21-pages and using a fairly large font, the document is mostly textual explanation with some media. The whitepaper sections include: Introduction, the problem, the solutions, the consensus algorithms, the TNS token, the ICO, the Roadmap, and the team. The business plan and technology behind Transcodium are well and concisely presented, and there is also a separate document that goes into further detail regarding the company’s business plan.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.0
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.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

A basic roadmap is given on a monthly basis, starting with a ‘Cloud version of platform created’. Critical obstacles lie ahead with wallet development and beta testing not occuring until after the ICO, and a public launch not until Nov. 2019. The roadmap is vague and descriptions are not provided for what intermediate steps are necessary to complete each milestone.
Important Milestones:
Mar. 2015 – First Cloud version of platform created
Jul. 2017 – Company Registration & Legal Processing Commenced in UK
Jan. 2018 – Token pre-sale
Mar.. 2018 – Public Crowd Funding
Jul. 2018 – Development of wallet (with built in exchange and miner) for major platforms (Android, Windows & Linux)
Dec. 2018 – Development of master node application for major platforms
Jul. 2019 – First beta testing of platform & the provision of fully paid premium accounts for investors,token holders, brands, startup to try the platform for 1 month.
Nov. 2019 – Production commence for the platform

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.0
Compliance
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Compliance

The TNS-token has intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Transcodium platform, allowing for peer-to-peer decentralized file processing, as well as lending and wallet exchange capabilities.
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, however there is currently a legacy cloud platform, as well as a demo available on the website.
Compliance is almost completely ignored with no statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and no outlined processes for whitelisting or manual screening.
There is no legal review or terms and conditions of the sale detailed anywhere.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.4
Company and Team
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

Transcodium has an established team with 7 employees and 5 advisors.
The core team has experience in startup development, programming, frontend/backend design, blockchain design, web architecture, cybersecurity analysis, marketing, and social media engagment.
The advisors bringe experience in software development/programming/engineering, coporate/securites law, business analytics, cryptocurrency, smart-contracts, and blockchain projects. A well known advisor to the project is John McAfee.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Only one member of the team is fully dedicated to the project, while most of the team members are dedicated to multiple projects outside of Transcodium. One core team member and a two advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has committed advisors with previous blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contract experience and there is one blockchain developer on the team.
Negatives: Most of the team members are not fully dedicated to the project and more blockchain developers will most likely be necessary.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.8
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

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

Token Sale

Transcodium Token (TNS)
Total Supply 120,000,000 TNS
ICO Sale 86,400,000 TNS
Minimum goal $500,000 USD
Maximum goal $30,000,000 USD

Bonuses & Discounts
5,710,000 TNS 30% Discount $0.263 USD (Presale)
6,680,000 TNS 20% Discount $0.300 USD
22,190,000 TNS 10% Discount $0.338 USD
25,220,000 TNS 05% Discount $0.357 USD
26,600,000 TNS 00% Discount $0.376 USD

Token Distribution
Token Sales ( 72% )
Bonuses & Discounts ( 4% )
Advisors & Partners ( 4% )
Bounty ( 1% )
Team Members ( 10% )
Marketing (Present & Future), funding of trial accounts for customers & platform testers ( 9% )

Token Proceeds Budget
Project Development ( 50% )
Company Expansion ( 3% )
Marketing & Brand Awareness ( 20% )
Operational Expenses ( 15% )
Legal & Insurance ( 10% )
Miscellaneous Budget ( 2% )

Social Media Presence & Following
There is very little community engagment and reception.

Product

A centralized cloud platform is currently available, and a demo platform is available for trial download on the Transcodium website. The Transcodium platform is scheduled to be further developed and launched after the ICO, including the wallet and the beta, as well as the full blockchain based solution (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the product, given an estimated needed growth for transcoding technology of almost 20% compounded anually for the next three years. The potential / target user-base is very large – as much as 1/3 of online activity is dedicated to video content which needs transcoding services.
There is large legacy competition and competition over time will greatly stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues, given the size of the target audience.
Competitors: Vantrix Transcoder, Vantage transcoding, MediaCoder, Coconut Transcoding.

Category Breakdown
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it has developed its own app for peer-to-peer decentralized file editing, transcoding, and distribution, based on distributed computational power.
There is a disruptive advantage as, in theory, such a marketplace would allow those without access to large amounts of computing power locally, to access it globally via a decentralized blockchain system, and since such applications are currently centralized.
There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent dapp, however in theory this could be accomplished with ETH as well.
The platform will use decentralized blockchain technology for data storage, however master nodes will remain centralized for ‘legal reasons’, due to sensitive nature of the data being stored.

Category Breakdown
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?

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?

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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.0

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is simple, yet professional and concise. Somewhat short at 21-pages and using a fairly large font, the document is mostly textual explanation with some media. The whitepaper sections include: Introduction, the problem, the solutions, the consensus algorithms, the TNS token, the ICO, the Roadmap, and the team. The business plan and technology behind Transcodium are well and concisely presented, and there is also a separate document that goes into further detail regarding the company’s business plan.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
3.6

Roadmap

A basic roadmap is given on a monthly basis, starting with a ‘Cloud version of platform created’. Critical obstacles lie ahead with wallet development and beta testing not occuring until after the ICO, and a public launch not until Nov. 2019. The roadmap is vague and descriptions are not provided for what intermediate steps are necessary to complete each milestone.
Important Milestones:
Mar. 2015 – First Cloud version of platform created
Jul. 2017 – Company Registration & Legal Processing Commenced in UK
Jan. 2018 – Token pre-sale
Mar.. 2018 – Public Crowd Funding
Jul. 2018 – Development of wallet (with built in exchange and miner) for major platforms (Android, Windows & Linux)
Dec. 2018 – Development of master node application for major platforms
Jul. 2019 – First beta testing of platform & the provision of fully paid premium accounts for investors,token holders, brands, startup to try the platform for 1 month.
Nov. 2019 – Production commence for the platform

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.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
3.0

Compliance

The TNS-token has intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Transcodium platform, allowing for peer-to-peer decentralized file processing, as well as lending and wallet exchange capabilities.
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, however there is currently a legacy cloud platform, as well as a demo available on the website.
Compliance is almost completely ignored with no statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and no outlined processes for whitelisting or manual screening.
There is no legal review or terms and conditions of the sale detailed anywhere.

Category Breakdown
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
2.0

Company and Team

Transcodium has an established team with 7 employees and 5 advisors.
The core team has experience in startup development, programming, frontend/backend design, blockchain design, web architecture, cybersecurity analysis, marketing, and social media engagment.
The advisors bringe experience in software development/programming/engineering, coporate/securites law, business analytics, cryptocurrency, smart-contracts, and blockchain projects. A well known advisor to the project is John McAfee.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Only one member of the team is fully dedicated to the project, while most of the team members are dedicated to multiple projects outside of Transcodium. One core team member and a two advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has committed advisors with previous blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contract experience and there is one blockchain developer on the team.
Negatives: Most of the team members are not fully dedicated to the project and more blockchain developers will most likely be necessary.

Category Breakdown
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.4

Token Sale

Transcodium Token (TNS)
Total Supply 120,000,000 TNS
ICO Sale 86,400,000 TNS
Minimum goal $500,000 USD
Maximum goal $30,000,000 USD

Bonuses & Discounts
5,710,000 TNS 30% Discount $0.263 USD (Presale)
6,680,000 TNS 20% Discount $0.300 USD
22,190,000 TNS 10% Discount $0.338 USD
25,220,000 TNS 05% Discount $0.357 USD
26,600,000 TNS 00% Discount $0.376 USD

Token Distribution
Token Sales ( 72% )
Bonuses & Discounts ( 4% )
Advisors & Partners ( 4% )
Bounty ( 1% )
Team Members ( 10% )
Marketing (Present & Future), funding of trial accounts for customers & platform testers ( 9% )

Token Proceeds Budget
Project Development ( 50% )
Company Expansion ( 3% )
Marketing & Brand Awareness ( 20% )
Operational Expenses ( 15% )
Legal & Insurance ( 10% )
Miscellaneous Budget ( 2% )

Social Media Presence & Following
There is very little community engagment and reception.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website