You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 🚩 Etherparty Analysis Part 3: Team & Funding
This is the type of analysis needed when looking at projects. This post, combined with your other two posts on Etherparty.
Having worked on a project I think their token distribution was fair. Also, the advisors thing is typical. We had agreements with advisors from all over the world, many whom were friends eager to lend their expertise.
Thanks! There will be one final part where I go over the economics of the token and the competitors.
I'm not really against having advisors, but I think it's misleading to represent them as team members. IMO, it would be better to list a core team and an advisory board or whatever.
The token distribution is fine as it is, but just irks me because in part 1 and 2 I already got the feeling that the token does not add value to the project. I feel a lot of companies are hopping on the crypto bandwagon in order to get easy money from investors.
I agree it should be clearly stated who the core team is vs. the advisory board.
I am totally fine with ICOs even though I stay away from them. We need the tech developed and pushed forward as quickly as possible before Govs. and Banks try put the breaks on it. A majority of projects will fail, but the world changing ones won't. I was in SF during the Dot.com boom and this is just like that, but global. It's incredibly exciting to say the least.
BTW, do you know who Chris Burniske is? He has some great opinions on evaluating projects.
No, I haven't heard of Chris Buriske before. Found his Medium page after a quick Google search. Anything in particular I should read?
His cryptoassets valuation formula is very interesting https://medium.com/@cburniske/cryptoasset-valuations-ac83479ffca7