ICO Rating

TokenStars ACE

Tokenizing celebrities for funding and promoting rising stars

About TokenStars ACE

TokenStars is a blockchain company that tokenizes the careers of aspiring celebrities. TokenStars aims to disrupt the global talent development industry by providing funding resources to rising stars in sports and show-business while decentralizing talent sourcing and promotion worldwide. TokenStar’s first project is ACE, designed to support promising tennis players on their way to becoming prominent tennis stars. ACE will introduce tennis fans to the blockchain world, letting them be a part of the next Federers’ and Sharapovas’ success. In later stages, TokenStars will launch new verticals to support football, poker, basketball, and hockey stars, as well as actors, musicians, and models.

TokenStars was founded by CEO Pavel Stukolov, a Russian investment professional (with a total valuation of assets exceeding $95 million), working with marketing director Irina Shashkina (formerly CMO at Groupon Russia and Biz Dev Executive at Rambler&Co) and scouting analyst Anton Vdovin (an MSc in International Business and winner of math and chemistry student championships who has played tennis at regional tournaments).

Advisory Board

  • Anastasia Myskina – Professional Tennis Player – No. 2 in WTA ranking. Roland Garros champion (Grand Slam tournament), the winner of 2 Federation Cups and 21 international tournaments. Current Russian Federation Cup team captain, Vice-president of the Russian Tennis Federation.
  • Sergey Demekhine – Coaching & Scouting Advisor – Tennis coach with 8 years of experience, retired ATP tennis player, Vera Zvonareva’s head coach in 2010-2011 (No.2 in WTA rankings, rising from No.22 in the beginning of coaching) – Wimbledon & US Open 2010 singles finalist, Australian Open 2011 semi-finalist. A-level GPTCA certification holder (Global Professional Tennis Coach Association).
  • Maya Kurilova – Talent Management Advisor – Former Operational Director at Octagon (Top 3 global TMA) with 11 years of experience in talent management. Marketing Manager at Kremlin Cup. Agent of Anna Kournikova, Elena Dementieva (Olympic Gold medalist, ?.3 in WTA), Ekaterina Makarova and Elena Vesnina (both in Top 5 WTA Doubles, Champions of Wimbledon 2017, Roland Garros 2013, US Open 2014).

Additional business advisors include investor Elena Masolova, Ksenia Chabanenko, and Alexander Stratilatov.  

According to Stukolov, “At the moment, the top 10 athlete management agencies have $1.19B in yearly commissions and 3,731 years of contracts signed. The industry is bigger than the GDP of Serbia, Bahrein, Brunei or Cyprus. ACE disrupts this market, decentralizing it and sharing the value among the community.” The project’s advisors agree that funding is an issue for aspiring athletes, one which the ACE project can help to solve. “Lack of funding is a typical problem which almost all tennis stars faced as juniors. Their funding options are limited by parents’ money, loans from friends, and small grants from local tennis federations and talent management agencies. The top 10 TMAs have over $25B in contracts under management and have a monopoly on deciding who is going to have a career and who is not. Mistakes based on gut feeling are inevitable in this process. As a crowdfunded project, ACE has the potential to disrupt tennis talent representation and protect rising stars from being overlooked,” says Sergey Demekhine. “Aspiring tennis players need approximately $100K a year to build a career. Some have to put everything at stake – just like Olympic medalist and 5x Grand Slam winner Maria Sharapova, who came uninvited from Russia to Nick Bollettieri Academy in Florida at the age of 9. Her father had to work as a dishwasher just to cover her bills. Later she earned $36.5M in prize money and $285M in sponsorship deals. With ACE, young players like Maria Sharapova can get funding for academy costs, coaches, sparring partners, and tournament participation, as well as help with signing sponsorship agreements,” says Elena Masolova.

ACE will provide funding and promotion resources to young aspiring tennis players at the critical junior age, significantly increasing their chances for success, as well as representation and promotion for established (pro) tennis players. The project has already signed its first contract with an established professional player – Veronika Kudermetova, winner of 19 international tournaments (No. 66 in WTA ranking in doubles, top 200 in singles). A successful initial sale will allow ACE to support at least 20 tennis players and 2-5 established professionals. Depending on the results of the token sale, ACE might manage to sign several full-time coaches and open a small academy for ACE juniors.

TokenStars intends to build global decentralized scouting and promotion networks, where talent selection and promotion are based on athletic merit. Analytics will be used to track athletes’ progress and key decisions will be made through a democratic process involving all token holders. Blockchain technology will allow fans to collectively support athletes, and to decentralize the key processes of scouting and promotion, thereby lowering the costs dramatically and shifting most of the created value to the community. The added value to token holders can be in exclusive communication with the stars, one-on-one training, VIP tickets to events, signed merchandise, business endorsements well below market price, etc. The project has well-balanced stimuli for talent sourcing (paying a referral fee to tennis coaches as high as their annual salary) and promotion (up to 10% of the first contract with an advertiser), including appropriate compensation for intermediate steps (even if a player wasn’t selected, or a contract wasn’t signed) which should provide a high-quality flow of candidates. The project will also provide scouts and promoters with tools and tutorials.

The ERC20 compatible ACE token will provide voting rights in the project’s DAO decision-making mechanism and serve as the fundamental unit of account and method of payment for all activities on the platform, including payment to agents, for which an established minimum compensation (pegged to US Dollars) will eliminate exchange volatility risks. On the horizon, immediately following the ACE tokens for the tennis vertical, are GOAL tokens for football (soccer), and a poker platform is also underway. TokenStars will allow swapping of sport-specific tokens (ACE for tennis, GOAL for football, and others later) for the general STAR index token, so early supporters will get a priority seat in the launching verticals.

Crowdsale Details

Start Time10-September-2017
End Time31-October-2017
Total Supply165,000,000 Tokens (99,000,000 of them available to the public)
Maximum Raise$15,000,000
Pricing Structure1 ACE = 0.0001 BTC

For every 60 tokens sold, 20 additional tokens will be issued and retained for the team, partners and advisors, and 20 additional tokens will be issued and retained for the community.

Holding of FundsN/A

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper      ACE whitepaper is comprehensive and detailed business and functionality plan.
Team Very lean configuration (only 3 core team members – executive, marketing, and analytics), albeit with very professionally strong advisors. Unclear who is responsible for tech development and blockchain dev in particular.
LocationN/A
BlockchainEthereum
Project CodeN/A
PrototypeN/A, but the company claims to have signed their first pro contract, and visualizations are available.
Token RightsVoting rights, unit of account and method of payment for all activities on the platform, including payment to agents (with an established minimum compensation pegged to US Dollars).

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

Interested in deeper analysis – TokenStars?

3.0
Product

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

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

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?

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?

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.)?

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.
4.0
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?

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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.
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.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
3.4
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?

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?

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?

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.
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
3.8
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)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully thought out and planned.
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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
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?

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?

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?

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.)?

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:
3.0

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?

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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.
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:
4.0

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

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?

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?

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?

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:
3.4

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
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)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully thought out and planned.
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:
3.8