Pension Rewards

1. The Team has completed KYC in the ICOBench Platform

2. The Team has not much prior experience in Business side though the CEO may have some freelancing experience.

3. The Vision is good, not great. Recently I rated a similar project with slightly better team and preparation.

4. There are already similar products in the market (centralized) which are doing exceptionally well.

5. What can Pension Rewards offer, which Fiverr or Freelancer site can't offer? Involvement of blockchain is not the big picture, using blockchain efficiently is.

6. And in time of dispute between the buyer and supplier, like the competitors, Pension Rewards also relay on the platform.

7. 30% of the fund from the ICO is allocated for Team/Miscellaneous. Sounds like a random number thrown on the Financials.

Compare the two?

Will the current users in the Freelancer market ditch the current platforms for a better price?

For Buyers, Pension Rewards would be a platform with fewer possibilities.

For Sellers, Pension Rewards would be a platform with fewer opportunities, they have to start from zero again to create a reputation, while they already have an established business in the competitor space.

Seems like a tough battle to be in.

2 For team because they have completed the KYC
2 For product, but not for prototype, but for the template they have used and the effort put forward for the customization of the same.
2 Vision needs a lot more improvement.

Lot of freelance projects these days, making this a very crowded space . Don’t see how these guys deliver anything special. Why would this win over other teams obviously there can be more than one in this space but these guys do not show why them .

White paper - The white paper is based on decentralizing the freelancer market. This projects is just an idea as of yet. It contains some relevant materials for an investor but lacks specifics.

Team - The core team is inexperienced and does not have relevant know - how to make this project work. The advisor is also unrelated to the industry.

Tokenomics - The token deployment are within reasonable limits. But the biggest problem lies in the funding allocation part. The founder core team reserves 10% of the tokens and on top they also take 30% of the funding received. This is clearly unprofessional.

Business Model - The business model is quite clear but without the specifics. The future plan and partnerships are not mentioned.

MVP/ DApp/ Working Product  - No MVP.

Note - In terms of the input provided by the team, I am re-rating my score.

"The term specifics in your claims seems unclear to us and I will love you to examine how the whole freelance platforms operate.
You also claimed its just an idea , a statement I will also disagree to, even though everything we use in the world today started as an idea as well. We're selling our ideas out so as to raise the funds to make it happen via ICO.

Regarding the team - We all have different intra/interpersonal skills and I really don't expect we list all our skills to disfigure our website or whitepaper. I am the founder and I have been a freelancer for almost 4years , as well as a crypto trader. I understand how freelancing works and I've experienced the problems existing around the platforms (which we also highlighted to solve with our on platform). Besides, don't forget we also indicated that we will be hiring more teams as time goes on and this was stated on our roadmap and we also added our hiring mail. The platform/community to be needs huge amount of staffs and technicians and we are aware of this.

Regarding our advisor, he has been in the space for long as well and has partnered in other blockchain related projects making him fully understood what we aim to achieve with our project.(though we are open to more advisors)

The Tokenomics: From our whitepaper, we stated that the Token allocation for team and ecosystem will be locked for 5years. looking into the 30% which was been set for Team/miscellaneous , this will be used to hire staffs/technicians and to expand the team on the long run.

Business Model- You still emphasized on "without specifics" and partnerships as well. In our whitepaper, we stated that we will be in partnerships other payment processors, with companies, schools and lots more(even though none was disclosed ). This is on our roadmap and we have our own strategies to achieve this and I see no reason why this should be a worry as well.

NO MVP? - if you visited our main website , you will notice we have our MVP as a demo at https://pensionrewards.com/demo , as well as a flowchart of how the platform will operate, available in our whitepaper."

My Take on the whole matter -
"We're selling our ideas out so as to raise the funds to make it happen via ICO" - The team does not have a product yet but a vision.

5 years token lock in is good; instead of 30% for Team/miscellaneous, please replace it by "Operational Cost" makes more sense. [I quote -The 30% will be for both core team, hiring
professionals, staffs [it's a company to be] and building of the company
structures and equipments as well" - better rephrase it as operational costs for simplicity].

I rephrase - I can't judge the team based on their LI profile but none have experience in running a freelancer site including adviser. Judging from that it's difficult to know about the capabilities.

No partnership was disclosed (accepted by the team members) & the MVP is a demo.

First review on 11 Nov 2018

1. Many good points raised by Douglas and Shebin.

2. I will revise my ratings after receiving further responses from the team after addressing their points and questions.

For record purposes: 2dv(D) and 1dv(S) as at 11 Nov 2018.

----------

Reply from Olawale Odejide on 12 Nov 2018:
"In response to Douglas review because he will delete my response to his review again.
North Dakota are inexperienced, mixing Freelance Platform with Ponzi because of token value prediction is lame. BTC is also projected to move upwards, sideways. It baffles me as he called us a scam straight away. Experts like him are not fit for this space cos he is not constructive but destructive. IMO. He never interviewed any team member and didn't truly understand our project.
We are scam?, we gave out our KYC, Our Social Media Profiles to be easily reached. Yet all you could say is we still scam.
About our MVP. It's started that it was just a demo and our real MVP will be out as we are approaching our softcap.
Regarding our ICO Dates. Reason was stated in our whitepaper. It was intentional due to market conditions and to avoid us from shifting dates of ICO stages if caps not met easily with drafted periods just like ARAW has been doing. If Caps are met faster, the Roadmap will be corrected to close gaps.
He claimed our Linkedin profiles are less than 200 Connections, should this be a barrier? That's lame. We could easily load fake connections and have 500+ each but we are not gonna do such or load fake users in our social media accounts to deceive. We have received countless offers to help boost our ICOBench ratings but we ignored fake reviews. We got offers to help boost telegram and bitcointalk threads to attract people, we ignored as well to keep it real and clean.
Saying the team is inexperienced as well? You do not judge people easily when you do not know their capabilities yet until proven otherwise. PS; We stated we will be hiring more professionals.
NOTE: We can't list all our features or model out easily now as we understand we got competitors our there who might hijack it and beat us in advance to our own launch."

------------

Follow-on review Part 2 review on 13 Nov 2018.

I appreciate your response.

I noted that you have restricted USA and China from your ICO - which is sound.

I have two additional questions:
Q1. What is your smart contract address?
Q2. What is your primary reason for a year's long ICO?

Ratings is now being adjusted from T=1 V=2 P=1 to T=2 V=2 P=2

----------

Reply from Olawale Odejide on 14 Nov 2018:
"Smart Contract : 0x54FaFe3442D050C022B7818e50ab448303E47D30 [Its in our whitepaper and website. Clickable]
Reason for the prolonged ICO date is to avoid us from shifting ICO stages date if Caps are not met. Look at the case of ARAW Token ICO. All reason were stated in our whitepaper. I personally worry if some expert actually go through the whitepaper well or not.
Our whitepaper answers any question that might come to us even when we not available to respond. We beat that part. But unfortunately, there were negative looks on us which still baffles me if it's another crime to be honest."

----------

Follow-on Part 3 review on 14 Nov 2018:

Answering my own question: https://etherscan.io/address/0x54fafe3442d050c022b7818e50ab448303e47d30#code

Page 2 of the whitepaper states "Patents will be stored on blockchain, making them immutable, transparent and secure." Within and outside the context of Pension Coin, this statement is not just out of context but also does not make sense. I am not in a mood to coach now and your team may seek the professional opinion from a patent practitioner who is also familiar with the blockchain technology on why I say that.

Furthermore, the whitepaper could have been written in a more professional manner but I do appreciate certain information provided within this whitepaper that are typically not included in many other whitepapers.

For record purposes: 3dv(D) and 1dv(S) as at 14 Nov 2018.

In relation to: "SECURITIES DEPARTMENT ISSUES ORDERS AGAINST COMPANIES PROMOTING INITIAL COIN OFFERINGS IN NORTH DAKOTA", http://www.nd.gov/securities/news/news-archive/securities-department-issues-orders-against-companies-promoting-initial-coin

Olawale's explanation to Douglas and Naviin was: "As for North Dakota, they are inexperienced, mixing Freelance Platform with Ponzi because of token value prediction is lame. BTC is also projected to move upwards, sideways." does not make sense to me.

I would like to invite Olawale a final opportunity to explain the serious charge made by the Securities Commissioner of North Dakota (US Government) properly.

As per below link, North Dakota Securities Commissioner Karen Tyler has issued Cease and Desist Orders against Pension Rewards

http://www.nd.gov/securities/news/news-archive/securities-department-issues-orders-against-companies-promoting-initial-coin