One Game

Interesting concept but very hard to achieve. The team looks like they may be able to pull this one off, but the road is hard to truly get mass adoption.

Strong team and I feel advisor is low in quantity but high in quality.

This is not financial advice or a recommendation to invest in this or any other ICO. Investors must perform their own due diligence and not rely on external ratings to make their final investment decisions. ICOs are risky and 100% loss of capital is possible.

The Minecraft of a decentralized virtual world. Looks exciting with unlimited growth potential.

What is the current number of users playing One Game?

Team composition is really important to make the project success and it is rather important with an ICO in such a competitive market like this. I don't see a solid and strong team of the project.

However, the concept looks interesting that makes everyone can create their own game as you mentioned. Good point to start with.

Last but not least, as this is a pitch to drive attention of investors to your ICO, so taking care of every single aspect would make potential investors to contribute to your project. Good luck

Update: One more point is that you have not passed KYC report which is very important to your investors.

Advisory board is really strong see some successful Advisers on board. Team is Average. Vision is quite Interesting not bad. Also team have alpha version which is the avatar wallet.

· Efforts are interesting and growth is expected.
· I am worried that the development history of the block chain is not clearly indicated on the profile and link of the most important position of the chief block chain engineer.
· Although it is a huge effort, MVP does not exist. In spite of that, the software cap is not set.

The team rather strong also underwent verification in the project.
The idea and vision are quite realistic and it is the huge potential market.
And here the product is still rather weak therefore it delivered to 3 so far.

The gaming can definitely use virtual crypto currency but main thing is how they integrate on to the system. Team looks good but the utility of token is not clear. Also, what is it for normal investor in it? Not everyone will be playing games. Also, Games life cycle is generally 2-5 years max, what will happen if there is no other development happens. Best of luck team.

Decent team with strong advisors. Will have to see how good the product ends up being . Good idea hard to execute . Will be in competition with decentraland.

Team - seems all encompassing, but maybe a little light on leadership experience. Some advisors don't list the project on LinkedIn. KYC has been passed.

Vision - the idea of a VR sandbox seems like a nice idea, but I can't help but feel it needs further definition to become a go-to platform like minecraft or fortnite. I can understand the creation of an in-game economy (been seen before) but from an investment perspective, is this project going to be popular enough to raise the price of tokens? It's hard to say, but I would feel more confident if there was a more defined concept to attract users primarily. There is no breakdown of how raised funds will be spent in the WP.

Product - no MVP available on website or through link provided to other reviewers. 3 until available.

I like the idea, but a little more definition is needed in my opinion.

Good luck to the team for project implementation.

The idea of a decentralized gaming platform is quite interesting. The team members are experienced which puts more confidence in the project.

There is definitely place in the market for this concept and I believe One-Game is a strong contender.

Facts:

1) KYC failed. Team with little to none ICO experience. No advisors from crypto community.

2) vision is there as a good looking tale. Will it ever become a reality is a huge question.

3) Failed to find an alpha version of the project to test it.

Team and advisors have good experiences related to games, software engineering, ICO, blockchain, AI. etc. Positive +

Several funds have invested in the project. Positive +

Whitepaper and website are appealing. They are designed very well and keeps reader's attention [however, i didn't like the video and the pissed looking guy with glasses :) ] Positive +

Product idea is good but there is no MVP (we only can see illustrations in the video which is definitely not enough). Neutral +/-

Hype is not bad with almost 9k on telegram and 5.5k on twitter. Neutral +/-

Token allocation is pretty bad. Sum of public sale and private sale makes only 38%. Negative -

Very interesting project. Tokenized economies are perfect for these kind of games. Second life is the perfect example that there is a huge market for these projects and that people are willing to spend money on it.

ICO cap seems a bit high but still reasonable.

It is a project which I would like to see it come to life. Maybe it will be the next big thing. Open source game sounds like Linux for games. Why not? The market seems to like the idea of customizable games and mods. The prerequisite that I find extremely important is the tokenomics of the project. The incentives must be really strong to create the needed number of developers to constantly improve the software. I like it though. I like it.

I get the idea of an open world game but still, there needs to be some sort of objectives for people to continue to wanting to play the game. Overall, it's a good idea. But can only say more once the beta is out.

I think games and blockchain are a great mix (not that they are that well implemented generally yet). This one is cool, I like the team and vision of the project.

Good vision and very interesting concept. Put a stronger team with intake of qualified advisors from the crypto community and redefine ll aspects of your ICO/product. There is still time if you take comments as constructive way to help you upgrade your concepts.

I think because of the state of blockchain right now, it is difficult to mix it fully with gaming.

The team seems developed and experienced so I put some trust in the fact that they can likely find a way to make this work, although I think the final result will likely not be able to reach all of their ambitions.

VISION: This is an interesting idea although by no means unique. There is a clear use case for the blockchain here and there is potential for growth. However, it may be difficult to compete in such a market as I suspect there will be many rushing into this space. 3/5

TEAM: A fairly small team but strong in the sense that they have relevant experience in software development. However, some of the team members appear to be spread across other projects on LinkedIn. A fairly small, yet strong, team of adivsors. 3/5

PRODUCT: The white paper is acceptable but the MPV is weak for this stage of the ICO. 3/5

This is not an invitation to invest. ICOs are risky and you can lose everything you put in.