SNBL

The project target on a high challenge market but lack of more proof document to convince investor.

Since there are hundred crypto currencies already deployed, why snowball? It’s the major key successful factor which need more discovery.

Looking like a very weak team sadly. A lot of critics on this project and I agree with most of what other experts are saying.

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.

team has lack of experience in blockchain technology. lack of experience in all side. dont find linkedin. wp looks very bad. dont have technical analysis in wp. dont have mvp. dont invest in this project. this is a complete disaster.

Misleading and unprofessional are two red flags which made me give low marks for this project. Making money out of money for no other aligned profit does not bring in the needed ROI for investors - so where will the growth come from? The short term outlook on milestones additionally makes me think this a project will run short of its promises..

Seems to be misleading investors and making promises that are unreasonable and unethical. Also, there is several things such as the grammar and the short outlook on milestones which makes this a weak project.

1. Quite a few issues with this project.

2. I may revise my ratings after team has responded to all the comments by the other reviewers who have rated this project 1 1 1.

This project needs to be more specific in its proposal. The team really should work to make its product and offering more clear in concept and vision. It really needs to be more clear with the problem that is going to tackle.

Small team don't have much information about team members. No information about advisor board members. Team members LinkedIn profile missing.

---Vision is clear but how to achieve the vision is not mentioned in enough details.

-- No information about MVP.

"The snowball project will distribute this new crypto currency all over the world and raise its value hundreds of times. "

Okay, this is just stiupid. What a mess. The whole thing is just one great big bad idea with no focus, no structure, nothing but a promise that we will all get rich if we buy it. Right...

Very weak team, idea and product.
I don't believe in this project.
A lot of questions and competitors.
All idea like a clone of many projects with bad realizations.

Lots of red flags here. 0% of the group have linkedin pages posted. The explainer video explains nothing about the project just gives a lot of multi level marketing type dream hype.

The whitepaper is actually written well and describes the concept well, but there are too many other projects out there to take a risk with this one.

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.

Team - The team gets a 1 only due to passing KYC here. Only one team member has a LinkedIn profile, the rest of the team have very little written about them in the WP, leading to concerns. As I cannot research other team members to see if they're real, it makes listing them pretty pointless in this case.

Vision - Giving a 1 here, as I can't give less. No WP on the link here. Finally found WP though bitcointalk. It appears to be a collection of buzzwords and concepts that are popular at the moment without actually mentioning how the project will implement so many differing avenues for 1 token.

The synopsis at the top implies that the snowball token will help investors 'build up great assets and attain true wealth.' The WP claims to see a return of 15-30% pcm without showing backtesting or what trading method the algorithm will target. The rest of the planned avenues are as poorly considered.

Product - again, a 1 as there is nothing lower to give. I'm a tad confused as to what the product is, apart from a token and a lot of concepts with no way to implement them discussed.

I do not understand why this project has been listed here by the team. A lot more work needs to go into the project before it is even ready to be appraised properly.

--- Most of team linked-in or other social media profiles missing
--- Concept has nothing to solve Blockchain related problems - it's just an yet another token on Ethereum blockchain without adding much value.
--- No Blockchain Expertise in team
--- No Technical details in white paper and no other form of information available like one-pager or pitch-deck etc...

I thought the premium with star would be a great product to give ratings but it seems this one is not a good one though.

Weak team with a lot of grammatical mistakes both in description and the whitepaper. Really wanted to give a higher rating but I could not. Hope the team will improve soon and am willing to adjust my ratings.

It's likely not a blockchain or crypto-project at all, definitely an investment in such ICO is total fail and you will loose your money. The technology under the project is very poor as well.

Is this real? Can someone at ICOBench just remove this listing altogether? It's apparently ended, there's no news of the project or if/how much capital was raised. And the description speaks (or rather tries to speak) for itself.

Sorry about the harsh review, SNBL, no offense, but really...

This project makes no sense to me,there it totally no need for this kind of concepts and value-making strategies in the cryptospace. Its no good! This will be a really bad investment.

This project is a joke and a clear example of how desperate they are to do an ico when they dont even know the basic parameters to do a successful ico.

This project sounds more like “ The chance for this token to gain some value is less than winning the lottery”. Fancy terms like AI and online gaming mixed with no reason whatsoever. I do not think this is a good idea

No team info and links on the website do not work (e.g. LI, FB etc.)

Project is using crypto terminology only to lure investors, but the whitepaper is poorly written - zero outlines on how they plan to do anything. No community backing them, as the Telegram channel has 30 members, Twitter 90 followers, etc.

Cannot find any information about their product, except the basic information in their roadmap.

Just stay away from this project.

I really don't understand what product they are offering. Hate to give a low rating but have to. Needs much work as it looks sketchy to me. At least the founders can get their KYC done, which is a basic step.

I think they should better position their product.

" It will a crypto currency that can be used for all kinds of entertainment." Seems like they do not even know what their ICO is about. I see a lot of Red Flags, no investment recommendation.

Unfortunately after reviewing twice I still had to rate this project the way I did. The team, vision and product speak for itself, from the very basic - grammar mistakes throughout, promises to investors alone raises red flags, etc. (many more). Wishing you all the best of luck in future ventures.

too many red flags.
Might be misleading investors with unreasonable and unethical promises. Also, Grammar mistakes and the short outlook on milestones which makes this a weak project.

New comment : Met the team and met most of team members, Informed about why social media is important. And liked the way they were working.



old comment.

Team : 2 members have done there verification hence giving 2. Other member don't have social media presence.

Vision : Vision isnt great and also whitepaper doent look good.

product : No prototype with poor team hence doubt about product

Nowadays it isn't enough to make a beautiful website and promise something in the future.
Now, to become a successful project and receive necessary investments it is important to:

- Country token emission ➖
- Platform token sale available ❌❌
- Innovation level - incremental - ➖
- Show the MVP (product, prototype) - Not clear ❌
- Strong Competitor analysis ➖
- Core Team ❌and not multi-position team
- marketing ICO budget ✅
- Events calendar ❌
- have agreements with exchanges ❌
- Business revenu Forecasting ❌
- show ROI to investors ❌
- have max. transparency ⚠️
- have legally protected product ⚠️
- work actively with the community ⚠️
- have a powerful team and advisors ➖
- meet investors F2F ⚠️
- have a descriptive WP (with clear financial model). ⚠️

What is the need for this project.
There are so many currency already out there and each one has it own value.
This is just another coin and SNBL said they will raise the value of the coin. Which is not possible.

Since when to list a token on Etherdelta must appear on the WP and be sold as a product? I've never seen this, it's a shame for all.
Stay away from this project

This just doesn't look like a professional offering. I'm very cautious to give bad ratings on ico bench but this one I had to..

The vision, the team, the grammar etc.

This needs some brand work and also at the moment just looks a little sketchy to me.

hope to be proven wrong

This is a literal pyramid scheme that's not even trying to hide it. It seriously looks like they've just put together a bunch of tech words and hoped that's enough to hide what it is. Don't put any money or ETH into this project, you're just going to lose it.

The team is very weak and unprofessional. The Whitepaper tells nothing. It's going to be a bad and unpromising investment and hard to attract investors.

One of the worst ICO projects I've ever seen. They are not ready.

I try to be fair but with this project ICO experts should suggest that ICObench change rating system from 1-5 to 0-5. I see they have 18 token holders and only 2.4B SNBL tokens Total Supply when the listing says 24B tokens for sale and with 100% token sale allocation I'm not sure how they planned to make anything viable out of this. Perhaps the token sale actually ended a month ago and their listing on ICO bench was incorrect on that front as well.