ICO Rating

Po.et

Po.et is a shared, open, universal ledger designed to record metadata and ownership information for digital creative assets.

About Po.et

Po.et is a shared, open, universal ledger designed to record metadata and ownership information for digital creative assets. Po.et’s core objective is to simplify the processes of publishing, licensing, and authentication of digital assets. Utilizing blockchain architecture and timestamped metadata for attribution and licensing, Po.et aims to create a globally-verifiable record of digital media assets, along with a standard, extensible metadata format which would make it easy for smart media applications to access and license these assets.Digital content today usually lacks sufficient metadata information (such as authorship, ownership, history, or even the date of creation), and the metadata that does exist can be altered or removed when the data itself is transferred or resized. This inherent lack of verifiable information breeds uncertainty, especially when complex chains of licensing, syndication and ownership are involved. Media marketplaces (like Shutterstock for photos) address this problem by creating centralized hubs for licensing and ownership information, but they are not interoperable with other applications and websites. Po.et intends to leverage blockchain technology and smart contract functionality to solve this issue, thereby facilitating the distribution of digital creative works and removing marketplace friction for publishers, editors and content creators.Proof of Existence is a non-financial blockchain application created in 2013 by ManuelAraoz and EstebanOrdano, Po.et’s technical architect. This blockchain application allows users to anonymously and securely store a cryptographic digest of a file linked to the time at which the user submitted the file, utilizing the Bitcoin blockchain to ensure that the file’s hash is permanently stored in an immutable data structure without the need for a central timestamping authority. Essentially, Proof of Existence enables a user to publicly prove their possession of a particular set of data at a given time, without revealing the data or their identity, in a completely trustless manner. This provides strong evidence in support of copyright or patent claims, and facilitates verification of a given digital asset’s integrity. The whitepaper lists various changes showing the growing legal admissibility of smart contracts and blockchain records, and explains that it was a group at Bitcoin Magazine (BTC Media) who engaged Esteban Ordano and a team of developers to build a project extending Proof of Existence to new commercial applications.   Po.et extends the timestamping and hashing features pioneered by Proof of Existence to enable new commercial applications by including additional metadata and discoverability. Po.et’s platform allows users to generate immutable ownership certificates of digital works, track and license assets on the web, discover new assets, and verify the authenticity of discovered assets. Po.et will enable anyone to discover more information about a given digital asset: who owns it, whether it can be licensed or repurposed, and its origin or publishing trajectory. Po.et will augment existing content repositories (such as Getty Images, Creative Commons or other licensing organizations) by creating a shared, open, universal, metadata framework that will form a basis for smart media applications. This will also facilitate the building of new and disruptive decentralized applications (DApps) and unique media integrations including asset marketplaces, rights management applications, and open research marketplaces.Po.et’s first development era, called Rosetta, is designed to attract digital publishers by providing them with a useful and inexpensive platform for timestamping and generating immutable ownership certificates for their digital assets. The next era, called Gutenberg, will provide additional features to facilitate seamless licensing, syndication, and attribution of digital assets among a network of publishers and trusted content creators. Once a strong network has been created, the project will move on to its third era, called Alexandria, in which it will encompass an open network and marketplace of independent content creators, editors and publishers.Po.et’s first stage (Rosetta) is designed to be useful for any publisher, by making trusted timestamps free, accessible, and with improved utility. The first feature integrated into Po.et is a standardized metadata schema for creative works, which enhances internal discoverability by creating a digital asset catalog and facilitating the search of a publisher’s timestamped assets. The associated metadata includes original URL, word count, author and publication, as well as any custom attributes chosen by the publishers. Po.et also provides an accurate log of the edits made to an asset along with an identity management system. Assets registered in the Po.et ledger can receive an authentication badge linked to their metadata and information. Bitcoin Magazine, a Po.et Alpha Partner, currently uses timestamping and badge authentication to improve the internal discoverability of its assets and to provide readers with proof of ownership and authenticity. Po.et’s second stage (Gutenberg) is designed to form a distributed network of publishers, editors, and trusted content creators: publishers will be able to purchase, distribute and claim content with confidence; editors will have access to a growing asset library with transparent licensing parameters; and content creators will receive exposure. The first features implemented in stage two will be a streamlined licensing system, payment channels, and immutable portfolios. Anyone using the Po.et network will be able to search, access titles, and license assets registered on the Po.et ledger. Users will be able to define contracts and individual terms of use, choose from pre-existing licenses or create custom parameters, automate micro-payments, and transfer or issue licenses. At this stage, Po.et will enable an asset marketplace with native discoverability, search, and financial exchange, where content is submitted by creators and discovered by publishers and editors, and where transactions are performed directly on the platform using smart contracts to automate payments and verification.The third stage (Alexandria) is where Po.et can reach its potential as an open, public network and asset database, and where it can grow into a user- and developer- friendly platform designed to streamline the process for contracting, creating, and licensing creative works. With the help of early network participants, Po.et will research and develop reputation systems, economic incentives, and other methods for fighting spam and promoting quality assets on the open Po.et network. Po.et’s documentation, APIs, plugins, tutorials and educational resources will make it easy for companies, applications and services to be built on top of the Po.et platform and benefit from access to Po.et’s network and features. Po.et has previously raised $1 million from media veterans, institutional investors, and blockchain entrepreneurs in a token pre-sale, and is now aiming to raise an additional $9 million. POE tokens represent a share of revenue generated from commercial activities on the Po.et network. Of the 3,141,592,653 POE tokens released, 50% will be distributed to the community. Of the remaining POE tokens, 10% will be distributed to the early investors who funded Po.et development prior to the token sale. An additional 10% will be distributed over time to publishers, journalists, partners, and others who contribute to growing the network. The Po.et Foundation will retain 22% of all POE tokens for long-term development, with the remaining 8% going to the early team and founders.

The Po.et Foundation Board of Directors

  • Bo Shen, Managing Partner of Fenbushi Capital
  • David Bailey, CEO at BTC Media (and founder of The Po.et Foundation)
  • Tyler Evans, CTO of BTC Media.

Backers

Anthony Diiorio (Ethereum, Jaxx), Richard Titus (Razorfish, BBC, Samsung), Steven Dakh (Ethereum, Smartwallet), Esteban Ordano (Proof of Existence, Streamium, Decentraland), Jeremy Gardner (Augur, Blockchain Education Network), James Heckman (Maven, Yahoo, MySpace), Greg Clayman (Viacom, Fox, Vimeo), Jeff Garzik (Bloq), Adam Levine (Let’s Talk Bitcoin, Tokenly), Matthew Roszak (Bloq, Tally Capital), James Gong (ChainB), Adam Helfgott (Madhive), David Lee (Block Assets), Simon Dixon (BnkToTheFuture).

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

4.0
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

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
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

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
4.6
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
4.2
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

Comprehensiveness

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

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

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
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 architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

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

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.
2.6
Compliance

Compliance

Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
4.0
Company and Team

Company and Team

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
3.6
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering 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?

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?

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?

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

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
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

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
Product Score:
4.0

Use of Blockchain

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
Use of Blockchain Score:
4.6

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

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

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
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 architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
4.2

Roadmap

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.
Roadmap Score:
4.0

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
2.6

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
4.0

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering 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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.
Token Sale Score:
3.6