Rated on Nov 1, 2018
Modified on Feb 13, 2019
Key founders did not complete the KYC process. Serious flag and warrants remedial action.
If the team responds, I will be willing to revise rating after KYC passed.
All the best!
Youngwhan "Nick" Lee
ICO team member replied on 9 Feb 2019
FYI, the founders at EcoVerse has done the KYC and all passed. Could you please update your rating? Thanks in advance.
Great that the core two members have passed the KYC.
1. Financial → The hard cap you're raising is US$175 million??? Is this number stated correctly under Financial?
2. Milestones → There is NOT a single mention on your product development other than sales?
3. Team → Who are your advisors guiding you through the ICO process?
I hope that the team takes a committed approach to updating key and relevant information for the community to understand your project.
All the best!
Rated on Nov 13, 2018
No KYC passed and no links to social media or LinkedIn profiles. Hudge sign of a poor or even worse scam project /No way to assess team's experience, expertise or education. Cannot definitively say anyone listed is connected to the project. Red flag.
Rated on Aug 4, 2018
Team - no KYC passed and no links to social media or LinkedIn profiles. No way to assess team's experience, expertise or education. Cannot definitively say anyone listed is connected to the project. Red flag.
Vision - confusing and under informative. 2 currencies - one asset backed tether and the other a 'trading' currency. Why? Sentences such as 'various techniques are used to secure the network' hardly inspire confidence. This seems more like an article on how AI backed PoC could work as opposed to PoW or PoS. But there is little here to give the sense it is a worthwhile token to hold. No tokenomics, no business plan, no competitive analysis, no target market.
Product - no product, no MVP, no anything here to show proof of concept even.
I'm David with the EcoVerse team. Thank you for taking the time to fill out a review. Just to answer a few of your questions, I think it could be a little confusing as we have more than one whitepaper. We have a 1) philosophical 2) Technical 3) dApp whitepaper. A bit unconventional, but we've covered much of the information you suggested was missing. As much as I'd love to include the information here, I'd ask you read the dApp whitepaper to see a more comprehensive look at our platform before posting a review.
But it's true, we do have two tokens. One is prepaid or tethered private, which seems pretty inviting for e-commerce as well as a public utility token for interledger exchange. An additional reason we've taken this approach for our tokens is in regards to privacy and KYC/AML regulation. We've included this in our whitepaper as well.
Our team is working on KYC/AML compliance as we plan on adhering to every legal requirement for a crowdsale. But you can look up our team including myself on Linkedin.
Again, thank you for taking the time to review our platform but ask you reconsider your rating as we've answered the questions you've asked.
Rated on Nov 14, 2018
Modified on Nov 14, 2018
Poor prepration for ICO.
Most of the advisory team does not have Linkedin profile.
No product. No MVP.
Red flags everywhere.
Experts are independently and voluntarily contributing to the community. If no expert has rated the ICO, only ICO analyzer's results are used. Always research before investing as these ratings should not be taken as an investing guide of any kind.
Ratings and ICO analyzer results are being updated (re-calculated) every few hours.