SynchroLife

Decentralized Restaurant Recommendation Platform

About SynchroLife

SynchroLife is a restaurant search and recommendation platform where food lovers are rewarded for sharing accurate information and high-quality reviews of restaurants. SynchroLife aims to create a global platform of trustworthy, accurate, up-to-date, and helpful restaurant information, as well as a personalized search and recommendation engine.

SynchroLife

The SynchroLife app was first released for beta-testing in Japan, at which point  users were rewarded not with tokens or any kind of monetary incentive, but with in-app gamification mechanisms (“experience points”, “titles”, “emblems”, etc.). Even so, and with limited personalized recommendation capabilities, over 32,000 participants joined and over 35,000 restaurants were added to the database during this period. In June 2017 SynchroLife released the first international beta version of its app for iOS and Android in four languages (English, Korean, Traditional Chinese, and Japanese) and in over 155 countries – this version is currently available on the App Store and Google Play. The company is also developing a website (set to launch first in Japan).

SynchroLife analyzes the restaurant ratings, view history, likes, pins, search history, follows, followers and other user actions within the app to provide users with personalized restaurant recommendations and search results that match their individual preferences and tastes. Recommendations and results are curated in accordance with the actions other users with similar preferences, based on a similarity score. SynchroLife restaurant reviews are based on individual ratings of 1-5 stars or a 5+ Special rating, and users can view individual ratings and read other users’ reviews. Users are also provided with a daily recommendation on the app’s home screen.

SynchroLife

SynchroLife will soon be launching a token crowdsale for its Ethereum-based SynchroCoin to fund the continued development of its platform. SynchroCoin tokens will be used within the platform to reward users who provide accurate information, high-quality reviews, good photos, and other content about restaurants from all over the world. Users will then be able to use the tokens to buy restaurant coupons and gift cards, tip other users or even make payments at participating restaurants.

SynchroLife plans to focus its development efforts first on growing the active user base, increasing the amount and improving the accuracy of information on the platform, and developing the personalized search and recommendation engine. Once the platform has grown, SynchroLife will also focus on developing an Online-to-Offline (O2O) marketing platform for restaurants so as to include user rewards, coupons, advertisements, and payment options. This will include CRM features that enable restaurants to attract and reward target audiences. Since the plan is to build a token-based economy that allows users to pay their restaurant bill with SynchroCoin tokens, restaurants will only be charged a small percentage of these transactions as results-based compensation. Users who submitted high-quality reviews or information about the restaurant will also receive a small portion of that percentage as a reward.

SynchroLife

SynchroLife’s revenue model is based on $3 monthly subscriptions for premium user membership (giving access to special features, discounts, and rewards), $1-$5 micropayments for coupons and gift cards sold on the platform, results-based compensation from advertising restaurants, $30-$50 monthly subscription for use of CRM tools by restaurants, general advertising revenue, and commissions from cryptocurrency payments.

Team Members

*information taken from company whitepaper/website
  • Tomochika Kamiya – CEO – Tomochika founded his first company, AI Pacific, Ltd. in 2005 while attending Hosei University. AI Pacific built and sold Online-to-Offline mobile marketing, advertising, and FeliCa tools to over 1400 restaurants and beauty salons. In 2015, Tomochika joined one of Japan’s biggest beauty companies as CMO to lead and maximize the return on investment of their several billion yen marketing and advertising efforts. Tomochika is currently the founder and CEO of both GINKAN, Inc and SynchroLife Limited.
  • Hiroshi Mita – Development Director – Graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Worked on rescue robots while at university and since graduating has been involved with the development of over 50 Android and iOS mobile apps.
  • Satoru H. – Blockchain Development – During his eight years working for a mobile app and systems company in Tokyo, Satoru worked on projects for many of Japan’s major cellular carriers, supermarkets, fashion, beauty, and entertainment companies. He has a wide range of experience as an engineer, developing AR and iBeacon apps, hosting engineering events/workshops, and more.
  • Shun Sato – Creative Director – Shun is currently CEO of the design firm THE APP BASE, and has a wide variety of design experience having worked in architecture before moving to IT. He’s worked on the UI and UX for over 300 different web and mobile projects.
  • Laura Symborski – Chief Director – Laura has a wide variety of translation and localization experience including translating for Japan’s largest recipe site Cookpad, working to assist Japanese companies to receive patents in the United States, doing Japanese ad quality checks with ZeroChaos and more.
  • Eunjin Kim – Director – Previously worked at Netmarble, Gmarket, and other major South Korean portal sites. Worked with the LG U+ cloud service and as product manager for U+ Box Shoot and their set-up box. Joined GINKAN to assist with the direction for 10-minute dating app Festar.
  • Motoshi Shimizu – CFO – Keio University Business School graduate and a certified public accountant / tax accountant, Motoshi earned his public account certification while in university (the youngest to pass at that time). Experienced public share support work at a large audit corporation. Studied at Purdue University Krannert School of Management and obtained a master’s degree in business management. After returning to Japan, Motoshi joined UBS Securities Company as the investment bank division director and worked with M&A and stock underwriting. Most recently Motoshi has worked as the Chief Financial Officer for one Japan’s largest resort management companies.

Crowdsale Details

Start Time 16-August-2017
End Time 13-September-2017
Total Supply Total Tokens: 100,000,000

Tokens distributed during crowdsale: 55,000,000 (55%)

Rewards Pool: 20,000,000 (20%)

Business: 9,500,000 (9.5%)

Team, advisors, and partners: 9,500,000 (9.5%)

Early Investors: 5,000,000 (5%)

Maximum Raise N/A
Pricing Structure Payment will be accepted in Ether (ETH). Minimum contribution is 0.01 ETH. There is no maximum contribution limit.

There is no preset price for the value of one SynchroCoin token – tokens will be divided pro rata among contributors at the end of the sale.

Bonus structure:  First 24 hours – 20%; Week 1 – 15%; Week 2 – 10%; Week 3 – 5%; Week 4 –  0%

Holding of Funds All funds raised during the token crowdsale will be stored in a multisignature wallet. After the end of the token crowdsale, a portion of the funds may be transferred to Bitcoin, other alternative cryptocurrencies, or fiat money to help mitigate the risk of the fluctuating value of Ether (ETH).

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       The SynchroLife whitepaper is a detailed business plan, including also details about the use of SynchroCoins within the platform. It does not go into technical implementation at all.
Team Although LinkedIn profiles are hard to come by, the team appears to be  experienced and dedicated to the project.
Location Hong Kong
Blockchain Ethereum
Project Code N/A
Prototype App is already active and has been through beta-testing in Japan.
Token Rights Rewards for activity on the platform, all purchases within the platform, even payment in restaurants.
Token as Asset Via Exchange.

*Disclosure – At the time of writing, Cryptorated staff owned no SynchroLife tokens.

Interested in deeper analysis – Synchrolife?

3.0
Product

Product

Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
2.6
Use of Blockchain

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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.
2.8
Whitepaper

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
3.0
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
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)?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
3.2
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?

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.
2.4
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 reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Product

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
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:
3.0

Use of Blockchain

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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:
2.6

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
3.0

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)?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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?

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?

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:
3.2

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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.4

Use this code to share the ratings on your website