Alethena

I think the WP should be improved. The marketing part is very weak, no numbers, no competitive analyses, i usually rate vision and product low for this. And certainly what is blockchain usage here? What blockchain competences have the people in the team and the board? Just a bunch of “strategic advisors”?! I checked Linkedin profiles and didnot find it.

I really like this project idea and vision. Bring a more transparent and professional inside rating to blockchain project is really a needs and pains to investor.

I have help more than 35 project in the past few months by using a very serious selection criteria, however, I still experience two scam projects.

So, even through there is a lot of improving space include profit model, rating methodology.... at this project. I till wish this project very success. And also I recommend Alethena should collaborate with more advisor and community since AI is not always prefect. Especially for material review, reference check and DD.

Dont really see what this does more than any of the existing products out there. A high cap of 30m is a lot of money and not celar what will be doen with that whne you also have a high margin product being sold. Looking at the nature of the token , I think it will struggle to get listed on any exchange as looks too much like it has a security type element or maybe this is a token where there is no aim to get a listing and tokens purchased to use in product only. Seems like looking to use the Swiss brand , but I dont see how this stands out or hgow they could use 30m
Originally ranked this as 3,3 and 3 , but reduced team to 1 as it has been proven they were paying for ratings
Would also like to udnerstand the scope and controls on the below that I see as a risk to token holders
Moreover the
general meeting may resolve on the formation of additional reserves (Art. 674 para 2
CO) and the board of directors is entitled to build up hidden reserves (Art. 716a para
1 section 3, Art. 960a para 4, and Art. 960e para 3-4 CO).

Team is unethical and purchased ratings on ICO Bench

The whitepaper is written well although lacking in the marketing part. The question remains with implementation of the project and the profitability of having the ICO - that's the crux, profit for the investors. This is the part where everything gets sticky. There should be numbers and competitive analyses.

In my opinion, this is how you write a white paper. Well structured, references, team bio’s, diagrams are well positioned and the paper is written very clean. I’m impressed. I do like AI, and the team/advisors appear to be ready. I’m not exactly sure how this project will come about, seems fairly unique and a bit difficult with some challenges, but it does appear they’re already on top of it.
I do agree with Igor’s opinion, about no numbers nor competitive analysis. Would like to see this as well
*Please see my profile for disclosures

Facts:

1) WP is very weak, should be improved big time, especially the marketing part.

2) DId not find MVP or Alpha version of the product.

3) KYC passed but bunch of LinkedIn profiles are claimed but not there.

4) Need for the technology to begin with is very arguable.

Team looks great as described in their whitepaper, but hard to find more on the net (missing LinkedIn for example). Cannot find clear statement how they will target potential users – missing business development/marketing strategy. In addition, it is tricky how their voting system will work in real scenario, especially when you have only the board and holders of more than 10% tokens to make proposals. There is a lot of competition in this niche, many others are not even using blockchain.

Reading WP of this project I concluded, that is just ordinary rating-agency business. I cannot find nothing unique in comparison with other rating and evaluation companies for example in US.

So question - you really need ICO, or you may be you can simply attract venture capital? This question became even more significant, because you sell securities here (tokens with "limited" voting and share functions).

Maybe it is easier to make standard security offerings? Or make STO (Security Token Offering) for accredited investors with full functionality (shares etc..)?