Quote from: slaman29 on November 03, 2017, 03:10:41 PM

Quote from: finvestor on November 01, 2017, 11:31:22 AM

I am doing analysis on Debitum Network project and will be able to share more once I fully complete it, but already now I like the project due to strong points:

1. Team - both financial and IT background, previous on-hand business experience, members working already for at least few years.
2. Market - credit gap for small businesses is huge, underserved by major banks
3. Working businesses - they claim to have two working businesses. One in invoice financing, for which they already raised EUR 3 million and have an invoice turnover of EUR 19 million3. Advisors - looks like business people, not only shiny names on the page. The other is IT development with 151 k project hours clocked.
4. Advisors team - looks like a mix of business people and "mini-stars", likely some of them will remain for post ICO business development.
5. Whitepaper - actually 3 docs (pitch story, position paper, token generation), which include explicit roadmap with detailed use of proceeds and how the ecosystem works.

My few cents. What do you guys think?

Don't take this personally, but I think your research is basic, which is a start, but it only places that ICO in the average category.

1. Team: financial and IT background, what about cryptocurrency or blockchain background? The solution is using blockchain, where are their developers?

2. Market - credit gap is indeed underserved but you have P2P lending which is picking up the slack from banks

3. Okay, this is a good point. So they know how to run a business.. IT devt with 151k hours is not that big btw!

4. Advisors: Not important. Might hurt if linked to other poor projects.

5. Whitepaper: Pitch story should not be part of whitepaper, neither is token generation really. Whitepaper should purely focus on technical details.

So on a whole, it's OKAY. Better than a lot, but not a lot.

Even if you think his research is basic I still like posts of both of you. I wish everyone in such topics would write something about why he thinks the ICO is good. Just writing the name of ICO is pretty useless. With so many different names mentioned I doubt it makes any help on finding good ICO's. I could go to a page that lists all ICO's, like icoalert for example, if I wanted to find just names of upcoming ICO's. I wish topics like these were more of discussions, not just listing names.

1. They do have a PhD listed as blockchain expert. His linkedin profile doesn't really show any experience in blockchain, but has more than 10 years experience in software development. And blockhain is software. I believe it requiers a bit different approach than "conventional" software projects. But someone having experience with software is probably at least mentally capable of doing blockchains. So his experience is much better than nothing. Especially with blockchain technology beeing new it's not surprising many team members are working on their first blockchain project but that doesn't mean they didn't have any interest and haven't learned anything about them. And they have another guy with 10 year experience in software development. Maybe their team really doesn't seem excellent, but I've seen worse. So let's say it's medicore.

2. I can see how small businesses would benefit a lot from such project. But who will be the lender? The banks or large loan companies that refuse to give loans to small businesses now? Why would using such project make them give out instant loans? The banks are complicating with giving loans because they want to protect themselves from risks. I can't see how that would change. But I admit I just skimmed the whitepaper so maybe it's explained in there.

3. Running business is good, yes. But sometimes is good to check the website of their business to see how much traffic it gets. I've seen ICO's claiming to have working businesses on their websites, but their websites received very little traffic so they were not as successful as they claimed to be.

4. Advisors can be very important for successful crowdsale. If they are big names even if they don't really give any advice just their name causes the ICO to sell out very fast. So they're guarantee the project will collect enough funds.

5. Whitepapers containing only technical stuff are actually bad in my opinion. Maybe not for you personally because you might understand technical stuff very well. But 99% of ICO investors don't understand it and pure technical whitepaper would make ICO loose a lot of potential investors. In my opinion whitepaper should be a document that presents the project to investors and contains everything an investor might be interested in. Even if the whitepaper starts with a Susan dry cleaning shop and sounds unserious because of that it explains to regular people that don't know much about technical or financial stuff quite well what problem they're trying to solve. I think their whitepaper isn't one of the best, but it seems good enough.

The project seems medium to good to me. But one thing the project seems to lack is interest of community. Their website has very low statistics of visits, Telegram group has only 300+ members, just 165 followers on twitter and so on. I think project with such low community interest will have hard time collecting enough funds to succeed.