ZPER

ZPER is a ‘decentralized P2P(peer-to-peer) financial ecosystem’ using smart contract technology

About ZPER

ZPER aims to be a financial ecosystem that utilizes smart contract technology to facilitate P2P (peer-to-peer) transactions, with risk management via robo-advisors. The venture is an alliance of top P2P lending companies, aiming to provide a solution for secure transactions between borrowers and lenders across the globe.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.2
Product
Readiness

Is the product 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.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Product

ZPER is comprised of P2P lending companies, information providers, and robo-advisors, and aims to provide a financial ecosystem for borrowers and lenders that utilizes smart contract technology for P2P (peer-to-peer) decentralized transactions. ZPER aims to do so through three primary offerings: 1) ZPER Wallet 2) ZPEROBO 3) ZPER Open Market. ZPER offers three distinct case studies 1) ZPER Student 2) Loans for small businesses 3) Supply chain Finance, however not much information is available.
Competition in the lending market comes in the form of traditional finance companies and big banks. There is also a host of more developed and trusted p2p lending platforms based on blochchain technology available such as SALT, ETHlend, Celsius, Inspeer, LendingBlock, and Lendoit just to name a few.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.8
Use of Blockchain
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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.

Use of Blockchain

The ZPER Token is an ERC-20 standard token.
The ZPR token is a medium of exchange for all economic activities that take place on the ZPER platform, and will be used in all transactions including investments for P2P loans, reimbursement of mature loans, rewards for data providers, and commissions for NPL purchasers.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

1.4
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Technology Presentation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

Whitepaper

The Whitepaper (29 pages) is not fully comprehensive and requires more information with regard to both the technical information and the business plan presentation. ZPER claims that borrowers can take out loans at lower interest rates than previously available, while investors can earn higher rates of return. However, ZPER does not support that claim. Additionally, ZPER plans to charge an undetermined network fee of 1-7%. The whitepaper fails to demonstrate how loans will be more cost effective for borrowers, and to prove that lenders will earn a higher rate of return.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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?

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?

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.

Roadmap

ZPER is in the fundraising and pre-beta stages of development. There are still hurdles on the way to creating a robust P2P lending platform.

2015 – Established P2P financial platform (FUNDA)
2016 – Established P2P financial platform (MIDRATE) (Olley) / Establish fiacial product recommendation platform (FINDA)
2017 – FUNDA achieved cumulative loan of 30M USD / MIDRATE achieved cumulative loan of 10M USD / Olley achieved cumulative loan of 10M USD. / Initiate ZPER
Q1 2018 – Publish Whitepapers / Corpate partnerships / Token Pre Sale
Q2 2018 – Token crowd sale / Launched basic ZPER Wallet service
Q3 2018 – First ZPR exchange listed / ZPEROBO service Beta Test / Expand partnerships
Q4 2018 – Full ZPROBO service launched / Expand ZPR exchange listings / XPER open market service beta
Q1 2019 – Full ZPER open market service opened
Q2 2019 – Expand partnerships

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.6
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

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 ZPR token provides the following utility: it is a medium of exchange for all economic activities that take place on the ZPER platform, including investments for P2P loans, reimbursement of mature loans, rewards for data providers, commissions for NPL purchasers.

The legal review (1.5 pages) is limited in its scope and comprehensiveness. The legal review has a brief risk disclosure and indemnification clause which includes a general sateen that the whitepaper is merely a reference and not legally binding. There is an AML section. However, there are no KYC requirements present. Further, the whitepaper is absent any terms and conditions of the token sale.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.

Company and Team

The company is based in Korea. The team consists of P2P business owners, robo-advisor developers, leading members of credit scoring businesses. The team is not as transparent as one would like; team members do not have links to LinkedIn, Github, or any other social media platform. Furthermore, some team members only list a first name making it difficult to find more information. Another cause for concern is that many of the team members share the same last names. The team’s background seems to be tech and finance focused, making it relevant to the project. However, the team lacks considerable blockchain experience, and there does not appear to be a dedicated blockchain developer or any credible blockchain experience.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.2
Token Sale
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

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

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

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

Token Sale

Hard Cap: 48,000 ETH
Soft Cap: 5,000 ETH

Distribution:
50% – Crowd-sale
22.3% – Ecosystem
17% – Team and Advisors
10.7% – Reserve

Here, the team’s and advisor’s portions combined with the company’s reserves (=27.7%) is substantial. While investment of only 22.3% back into ZPER’s ecosystem is relatively low.

Allocation:
40% – Research and Development
20% – Strategy Partners
16% – Marketing
13.3% – Business Development
10.7% – Strategy Partners

Product

ZPER is comprised of P2P lending companies, information providers, and robo-advisors, and aims to provide a financial ecosystem for borrowers and lenders that utilizes smart contract technology for P2P (peer-to-peer) decentralized transactions. ZPER aims to do so through three primary offerings: 1) ZPER Wallet 2) ZPEROBO 3) ZPER Open Market. ZPER offers three distinct case studies 1) ZPER Student 2) Loans for small businesses 3) Supply chain Finance, however not much information is available.
Competition in the lending market comes in the form of traditional finance companies and big banks. There is also a host of more developed and trusted p2p lending platforms based on blochchain technology available such as SALT, ETHlend, Celsius, Inspeer, LendingBlock, and Lendoit just to name a few.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product 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.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Product Score:
1.2

Use of Blockchain

The ZPER Token is an ERC-20 standard token.
The ZPR token is a medium of exchange for all economic activities that take place on the ZPER platform, and will be used in all transactions including investments for P2P loans, reimbursement of mature loans, rewards for data providers, and commissions for NPL purchasers.

Category Breakdown
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.8

Whitepaper

The Whitepaper (29 pages) is not fully comprehensive and requires more information with regard to both the technical information and the business plan presentation. ZPER claims that borrowers can take out loans at lower interest rates than previously available, while investors can earn higher rates of return. However, ZPER does not support that claim. Additionally, ZPER plans to charge an undetermined network fee of 1-7%. The whitepaper fails to demonstrate how loans will be more cost effective for borrowers, and to prove that lenders will earn a higher rate of return.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Technology Presentation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
1.4

Roadmap

ZPER is in the fundraising and pre-beta stages of development. There are still hurdles on the way to creating a robust P2P lending platform.

2015 – Established P2P financial platform (FUNDA)
2016 – Established P2P financial platform (MIDRATE) (Olley) / Establish fiacial product recommendation platform (FINDA)
2017 – FUNDA achieved cumulative loan of 30M USD / MIDRATE achieved cumulative loan of 10M USD / Olley achieved cumulative loan of 10M USD. / Initiate ZPER
Q1 2018 – Publish Whitepapers / Corpate partnerships / Token Pre Sale
Q2 2018 – Token crowd sale / Launched basic ZPER Wallet service
Q3 2018 – First ZPR exchange listed / ZPEROBO service Beta Test / Expand partnerships
Q4 2018 – Full ZPROBO service launched / Expand ZPR exchange listings / XPER open market service beta
Q1 2019 – Full ZPER open market service opened
Q2 2019 – Expand partnerships

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

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?

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?

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.
Roadmap Score:
2.2

Compliance

The ZPR token provides the following utility: it is a medium of exchange for all economic activities that take place on the ZPER platform, including investments for P2P loans, reimbursement of mature loans, rewards for data providers, commissions for NPL purchasers.

The legal review (1.5 pages) is limited in its scope and comprehensiveness. The legal review has a brief risk disclosure and indemnification clause which includes a general sateen that the whitepaper is merely a reference and not legally binding. There is an AML section. However, there are no KYC requirements present. Further, the whitepaper is absent any terms and conditions of the token sale.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

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:
1.6

Company and Team

The company is based in Korea. The team consists of P2P business owners, robo-advisor developers, leading members of credit scoring businesses. The team is not as transparent as one would like; team members do not have links to LinkedIn, Github, or any other social media platform. Furthermore, some team members only list a first name making it difficult to find more information. Another cause for concern is that many of the team members share the same last names. The team’s background seems to be tech and finance focused, making it relevant to the project. However, the team lacks considerable blockchain experience, and there does not appear to be a dedicated blockchain developer or any credible blockchain experience.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.4

Token Sale

Hard Cap: 48,000 ETH
Soft Cap: 5,000 ETH

Distribution:
50% – Crowd-sale
22.3% – Ecosystem
17% – Team and Advisors
10.7% – Reserve

Here, the team’s and advisor’s portions combined with the company’s reserves (=27.7%) is substantial. While investment of only 22.3% back into ZPER’s ecosystem is relatively low.

Allocation:
40% – Research and Development
20% – Strategy Partners
16% – Marketing
13.3% – Business Development
10.7% – Strategy Partners

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

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

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website