CoinCasso

There is no innovative idea, but the reduction to the user is preferable. The difference between hard and soft caps is large, but what is the reason for this?
For example, what is the difference between raising $ 3,500,000 and raising $ 5,000,000?
I could not get these reasonable confirmations.

At the moment, the exchange's variations have been exhausted. So the mission of the exchange is decent operation, polite customer service, and return to users. That's exactly what this project is aiming for. They are not clowns, they do not strange.
Estonia brings stability for customers.
The team members are solid, the financial plan is also clear and detailed.

The platform structure prepared by this project is similar to stocks.
To have a dividend is very conscientious.
There are various votes such as voting rights,
By investing you should be able to have the power to operate.
Such a project with a correct attitude is very impressive.

Another crypto exchange is nothing innovative but involving the community and making it more democratic is a pluspoint. But the gap between soft cap $3.5 and hard cap $100 million is completely incomprehensible and doesn’t make sense at all. There’s no white paper on ICObench and the one on the Coincasso fails to explain what the additional $96.5 million will be used for. Also, the ICO runs for entire year until 30 Dec 2019. Looking back at the ICO collapse in 2018, running an ICO for such a long time risks the project fizzling out before it even gets started. This miscalculation on every front does not deserve anything more than a 1 star for vision.

The team lacks tech completely, there’s no CTO, blockchain developers or coders and they don’t have a single outside advisors. Attempting to raise $100 million without a complete and experienced team is just crazy, therefore 1 star for team

The product is nothing new and there’s no MVP and nothing of coding to be found on GitHub. According to the Coincasso website, soft cap was reached. With a budget of $3.5 million, the project should already be well developed and there should be a functional MVP and beta testing going on, but that apparently is not the case which makes me wonder, what have the raised funds been used for? Just too many red flags, questions and no apparent progress, therefore 1 star.

I tried to look at the positive aspects of the project but there just too many drawbacks, and therefore I would suggest to the project team to reconsider their project and to make the necessary changes if they want to stand a remote chance of success.

Well, another Hybrid exchange, that is so cost effective to build, and claiming that they need a hard cap for 100 million dollars, i mean come on people, who is the financial analyst there who put these numbers?

I am fine with the team, they seem like good people from Poland, they have no bad history, but also they have no history at all at least online or at least something noticeable about delivering projects and what about their experience for example.??

I love the project, but i am not convinced in investing a single dime in it, as many questions are left unanswered.

I have done a study about Hybrid exchanges like Tokenjar and others, they cost nothing couple of thousands, as they do not need any major security protection or any hard coding, as people tend to keep their coins in their own wallets. Like metamask and so on.

Until now i would stay away.

We can not say that the project is exclusive, neither innovative, as it is trying to land in an already full area of ​​similar projects already full of competitors launched, some of which are very rich, influential, powerful and which already work really well and have found success, but this does not mean that they have no chance of success, as there can be room for everyone on the market, but it takes more than an idea, a whitepaper and a promise. 90% of the projects coming from Estonia or Eeastern Europe are exchange or something similar, there is a very high turnout in that area.

The team presents various figures apparently well distributed, but I could not identify any Blockchain developer, while the advisors are completely missing. It is clear that are not the advisors who develop a project, but they can help to acquire the necessary qualitative leap, since many of them have been in Blockchain for several years and have toured for dozens of international conferences gaining experience and knowledge in every side of the sector. However, they seem quite committed in the project and certainly work there, also participating in some international conference, like the last one in Hong Kong.

The social media and communication channels have very little community, although the team is active and publishes news and updates constantly, maybe you should look for some other way to encourage the adoption and support of the project since its initial stages. Website well done, contains the right information and offers a good preview. Not exactly the same whitepaper, which appears to be quite synthetic, a long promise, a couple of solutions and small strokes of tokenomics and business plans. There are no well-defined value propositions, neither analysis of the market or of the various competitors. The distribution presents a 77% of tokens to the sale, which could be a little excessive and a 20% reserve fund which is good as a reserve and in the whitepaper it is specified that they will be blocked for at least 3 years.

They want to distort the system, giving users the opportunity to gain money together with the company and in this way that they also have a certain power inside, but to do this, the project should be an open source and totally distributed, maybe implement its own Blockchain, implement a PoS (Proof of Stake), where to create a DAO and give power even in the hands of the top token holders, but all this, at the moment, it is not. They are looking for a development in Ethereum, like 99% of exchanges, so the only decentralized thing will be the payment system, everything else remains centralized.

On github there are no traces of works or updates, it is completely empty. The MVP is a very normal and does not present any revolutionary or innovative features, but simply a preview of the wallet, of the various coins it can contain and a graph implemented by tradingview. There is also a huge chasm between the Softcap (3.5M) and the Hardcap (100M), if you need 100M to execute the project, what would you do with "only" 3.5M?

Surely it is still too early to give a 100% accurate assessment and certainly the crypto / ICO market is not passing the best of moments, but we will see what the progress will be in the coming months.

Good luck with Crowdfunding.

→ Blockchain Advantage - Good
→ White Paper - Poor
→ Team Composition - Fair
→ Tokenomics - Needs Improvement
→ Business Model - Fair
→ Social Media Presence - Needs Improvement
→ Collaborations & partnerships - Needs Improvement
→ Fund Allocation - Poor
→ Legal Loopholes - Fair

You can maximize the potential of this product by using the best marketing team for spreading your vision. Mass adoption is the key to success, everything else is preparatory to the work ahead. Best Wishes.

CoinCasso aims to build up cryptocurrency exchange with $ 100 Mil hard cap (too much for an exchange), All the utilities functions of CCX token qualify same for security tokens. I am a bit sceptical about same. Would like to know more about legalities and licences obtained.

Disappointed with planning and information in Whitepaper. Would like to see more about financial planning, business strategy, security etc.

overall, i would rate this project planning unsatisfactory.

Views are my own. DYOR.

According to the strong vision and idea. I found team is quite weak but the concept of the Exchange is quite same as the other finance market
and According to the Investment view the project is good and in correct direction

Good Luck with Best Wishes