Monetha

Decentralised trust and reputation system, mix of PayPal and Trustpilot

About Monetha

Monetha is creating a decentralized, blockchain-based payment solution with an integrated trust and reputation system, which is what differentiates it from other cryptocurrency merchant solutions such as BlockPay, Coinpayments, Coss.io, and others.

Every transaction made with Monetha will be recorded to the blockchain including the time of the transaction, product details, receiving and sending addresses, warranty conditions, delivery time, and any other relevant purchase information. The information will be hashed and available only to authorized parties, but accessible to both merchant and client on the Monetha app. Based on this information, clients and merchants will be able to rate one another, as well as file and resolve claims, all of which will also be recorded on the blockchain. Moreover, a trust rating will be assigned to every wallet address and automatically adjusted every time a transaction is made, a claim is filed or resolved, a review is written, etc. Smart contracts will automatically (algorithmically) adjust the trust rating of a merchant based on customer ratings and reviews as well as responsiveness to claims, and that of a customer based on purchase and claim history. These trust ratings will be visible to other merchants or customers. Unlike ratings in centralized marketplaces, which are not influenced by unrated or unreviewed transactions, Monetha ratings will be automatically influenced by all transactions to varying extent. And furthermore, Monetha will allow users to transfer or export their accumulated reputation to other platforms.

[su_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L_-pPXngJM”]

Being a cryptocurrency based payment solution, Monetha naturally aims to make the payment process cheaper, faster, and more efficient than it is using traditional payment gateways, by reducing the need for intermediaries. When clients choose to pay through the Monetha gateway, the purchase amount will be converted to a selected cryptocurrency in real-time and a QR code will be generated for the customer to scan and approve with their crypto-wallet. The payment will then be transferred to the merchant’s wallet in approximately 2 minutes, and converted to the merchant’s preferred fiat currency via Kraken or other exchange API. Merchants will be able to choose the fiat currency, conversion frequency, time of deposit to their bank account, and other options. Monetha will not be able to suspend, hold or prevent any transaction – permissionless transactions will be guaranteed by their smart contracts. However, in its whitepaper, Monetha says that it will screen every merchant to ensure that only valid and authentic merchants use the platform, and that it plans to include an algorithm to recognize and red-flag unusual behaviour.

For its services, Monetha will charge merchants a transaction fee of 1.5% (with no chargeback fees), of which 1/3 (0.5%) will go to a “Voucher Smart Contract” for token holders and the remaining 2/3 (1%) will go the company as revenue. The voucher smart contract will provide token holders with the ability to claim a voucher proportional to the amount of tokens that they hold, to use as a discount or gift-card when shopping with Monetha. In addition, every purchase made with Monetha will reward the customer with 0.2% of the purchase value in Monetha tokens from the loyalty program pool. Other loyalty discounts will also be available.

To date, Monetha has developed an MVP which provides merchants with a Monetha payment gateway script that can be integrated into any shopping cart or website (some scripting knowledge is required). Merchant-side functionality enabling rates, limits, and automatic exchange to local currency are still to be developed. Also, while the whitepaper provides sample workflows illustrating the purchase and claim processes and how they affect the trust rate for both parties, the number, detailed structure, and functionality of the smart contracts will be defined and finalized during development. Monetha’s stated goal for the platform’s beta version is to provide an online e-commerce payment platform  which enables mobile payments in Ethereum-based cryptocurrencies, as well as to show the potential of its trust and reputation system, and to work with merchants to test and improve the solution.

Monetha plans to partner with major payment providers such as First Data or e-commerce platforms such as Shopify, and has former PayPal executive Eric Duprat as well as former Braintree executive Kellogg N. Fairbank on its lead team, along with co-founders Andrej Ruckij (formerly VP Development and Strategic Initiatives at Adform), Justas Pikelis (a Lithuanian entrepreneur who has previously founded IT and robotics companies), and Laurynas Jokubaitis (who, along with Ruckijj, co-founded Wowtto), as well as Dr. Jean-Marc Seigneur (Chief Reputation Officer at GlobCoin; has published over 100 scientific papers on computational trust and online reputation management). Other team members include engineering lead Viaceslavas Ruckis, principal Ethereum engineer Alex Bazhanau, product design / front end developer Erikas Malisauskas, smart contract developer Martynas Adomaitis, and software engineer Andrej Davidovic. The company’s advisors include Sean Harper, James Downton, Nik Rokop, Paolo Rebuffo, and Robertas Visinskis.

Monetha ICO Review

Crowdsale Details

Token Sale Dates Token sale begins 31-August and will continue for 31 days or until either the hard-cap is reached, or the soft-cap is reached plus a 120-hour countdown.
Total Supply 402,400,000 MTH, of which 50% will be available for the token sale, while 15% will go to the Monetha team, 13% will go to the loyalty program, 12% will go to the bounty campaign, advisors, partners, and ICO campaign costs, and 10% will go to future company financing.
Raise Limits Soft cap is 28,000 ETH, Hard cap is 95,000 ETH.
Pricing Structure 1 ETH = 2400 MTH  until the soft cap is reached

1 ETH = 2000 MTH  after the soft cap is reached

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       https://www.monetha.io/Monetha_WP.pdf

A business plan with sample workflows .

Team Experienced and versatile professionals, transparently involved. (See review.)
Location The development team is currently located in Lithuania.

The company is established in Zug, Switzerland by the name of “GmbH Monetha”, but business operations are being moved to Singapore (China is noted as a go-to market).

Blockchain Ethereum
Project Code N/A
Prototype https://www.monetha.io/en/mvp
Token Rights Discounts or gift-cards when shopping on the platform.

*Disclosure – At the time of writing, cryptorated staff owned no Monetha tokens.

Interested in deeper analysis – Monetha?

[su_button url=”/contact-us/” target=”blank” size=”8″ center=”yes”]Contact Us[/su_button]
Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.4
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

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.2
Use of Blockchain
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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.8
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

Whitepaper

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.4
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
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?

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.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.2
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.0
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?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Company and Team

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.8
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

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

Token Sale

Product

Category Breakdown
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
Product Score:
3.4

Use of Blockchain

Category Breakdown
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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.2

Whitepaper

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
2.8

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
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?

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.
Roadmap Score:
3.4

Compliance

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
3.2

Company and Team

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?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
3.0

Token Sale

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.
Token Sale Score:
3.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website