Pascal Marco Caversaccio
CO-FOUNDER & CEO
CO-FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
CO-FOUNDER & COO
CO-FOUNDER & CFO
CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER
CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER
COMMUNITY MANAGER & GROWTH HACKER
PAPERS.CH TECHNICAL PARTNER - SOFTWARE ENGINEER
PAPERS.CH TECHNICAL PARTNER - UI/UX DESIGNER
PAPERS.CH TECHNICAL PARTNER - VISUAL DESIGNER
OVERNICE – MARKETING SPECIALIST
OVERNICE – MARKETING SPECIALIST
CLARITY PR – PUBLIC RELATIONS SPECIALIST
Rated on 2018-05-18
In my opinion, this is how you write a white paper. Well structured, references, team bio’s, diagrams are well positioned and the paper is written very clean. I’m impressed. I do like AI, and the team/advisors appear to be ready. I’m not exactly sure how this project will come about, seems fairly unique and a bit difficult with some challenges, but it does appear they’re already on top of it. I do agree with Igor’s opinion, about no numbers nor competitive analysis. Would like to see this as well *Please see my profile for disclosures
Rated on 2018-05-17
I think the WP should be improved. The marketing part is very weak, no numbers, no competitive analyses, i usually rate vision and product low for this. And certainly what is blockchain usage here? What blockchain competences have the people in the team and the board? Just a bunch of “strategic advisors”?! I checked Linkedin profiles and didnot find it.
Rated on 2018-06-28
Dont really see what this does more than any of the existing products out there. A high cap of 30m is a lot of money and not celar what will be doen with that whne you also have a high margin product being sold. Looking at the nature of the token , I think it will struggle to get listed on any exchange as looks too much like it has a security type element or maybe this is a token where there is no aim to get a listing and tokens purchased to use in product only. Seems like looking to use the Swiss brand , but I dont see how this stands out or hgow they could use 30m Originally ranked this as 3,3 and 3 , but reduced team to 1 as it has been proven they were paying for ratings Would also like to udnerstand the scope and controls on the below that I see as a risk to token holders Moreover the general meeting may resolve on the formation of additional reserves (Art. 674 para 2 CO) and the board of directors is entitled to build up hidden reserves (Art. 716a para 1 section 3, Art. 960a para 4, and Art. 960e para 3-4 CO). Team is unethical and purchased ratings on ICO Bench
Rated on 2018-05-21
So it would appear that the success of this project is contingent on the 2 quoted "use cases" to succeed. • Supply side: analysis and rating − an initial rating, remunerated by a one-time fee, for upcoming ICOs, − extended by an ongoing post-ICO listing possibility by quarterly paying a revaluation fee. • Demand side: investors information portal − personalised user page with access to detailed information about the analyses against payment of a quarterly subscription fee, − extended by individual investment history tracking, insights on blockchainbased sentiment voting, and user-specific news aggregation. Neither use case or any other information show evidence of a viable ROI to investors. I do not believe this to be a good investment.
Rated on 2018-05-21
Team looks great as described in their whitepaper, but hard to find more on the net (missing LinkedIn for example). Cannot find clear statement how they will target potential users – missing business development/marketing strategy. In addition, it is tricky how their voting system will work in real scenario, especially when you have only the board and holders of more than 10% tokens to make proposals. There is a lot of competition in this niche, many others are not even using blockchain.
Rated on 2018-05-22
Strong team and experienced advisers. Actual project, and promising market, but with great competition. If the team implements the roadmap the project will have all the chances to succeed
Rated on 2018-06-16
Clever decision to capture this business niche. With the development of the market, its complexity will soon go beyond one’s capabilities and that is the moment, when transparency and rating will be needed. Good timing to start getting reputation, I wish the team to start as fast as they can!
Rated on 2018-05-28
I really like this project idea and vision. Bring a more transparent and professional inside rating to blockchain project is really a needs and pains to investor. I have help more than 35 project in the past few months by using a very serious selection criteria, however, I still experience two scam projects. So, even through there is a lot of improving space include profit model, rating methodology.... at this project. I till wish this project very success. And also I recommend Alethena should collaborate with more advisor and community since AI is not always prefect. Especially for material review, reference check and DD.
Rated on 2018-05-28
Bring BlockChain Tech to Asset Rating Industry is good. Good and experience team is a plus. Looking forward to see the product in action. Good luck to all the team members
Rated on 2018-06-01
Reading WP of this project I concluded, that is just ordinary rating-agency business. I cannot find nothing unique in comparison with other rating and evaluation companies for example in US. So question - you really need ICO, or you may be you can simply attract venture capital? This question became even more significant, because you sell securities here (tokens with "limited" voting and share functions). Maybe it is easier to make standard security offerings? Or make STO (Security Token Offering) for accredited investors with full functionality (shares etc..)?
Rated on 2018-07-13
The whitepaper is written well although lacking in the marketing part. The question remains with implementation of the project and the profitability of having the ICO - that's the crux, profit for the investors. This is the part where everything gets sticky. There should be numbers and competitive analyses.
Rated on 2018-07-15
Experts are independently and voluntarily contributing to the community. If no expert has rated the ICO, only ICO analyzer 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.
Founders privately start investing in ICOs, notice the absence of proper due diligence and transparency.
First Prototype of own due diligence methodology is being developed.
Legal structure ‘Equility AG’ is set up and platform and ICO preparations begin.
Official go-live for Alethena.
Strategic partners and advisors join, private seed round closed.
ICO to independently fund the development of product and methodology.
Release full product with v2.0 methodology. Become top-of-mind Blockchain Asset Rating in Europe.
Enhance and scale methodology with machine learning and R&D department.
Release largely automated v2.0 product.