| Team legitimity | | 3.95 | 5 |
| LinkedIn Profiles | How professional the LinkedIn profiles are? | 3.5 | |
| Background of Lead Team Members | How strong and suitable backgrounds the core team members have? | 4.25 | |
| Team Assembly and Commitment | How well the team is assembled and commited to the project? | 4 | |
| Team Skill Set Relevance | Are the team skills relevant for delivering what the project promises? | 4 | |
| Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain) | How balanced are the team skills sets between business, technology and blockchain areas? | 4 | |
| First Impression | What kind of first impression the ICO website and whitepaper gives? | 3.5 | 1 |
| Potential of tokenization model | | 3.15 | 4 |
| Blockchain Development | How far is the blockchain development going at the moment? | 3 | |
| Disruptive Blockchain Advantage | Does the ICO have a unique disruptive blockchain advantage based on the materials? | 3.25 | |
| Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH) | What additional value does the customer token bring to users and investors? | 3 | |
| System Decentralization (besides token) | How decentralized is the system? | 3 | |
| Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem | How strong the contribution is to blockchain ecosystem? | 3.5 | |
| Hard Cap | Is the hard cap of the ICO appealing from investor's point of view? | 4 | 3 |
| Token allocation + Fund allocation | How are the tokens allocated after token generation? How are the funds raised from the ICO going to be distributed in moving forward with the project? | 3.25 | 2 |
| Professionalism of the available material | | 3.7 | 2 |
| Comprehensiveness | Do the materials cover all necessary aspects so that the investors can make their decision? | 4 | |
| Readability | Are the materials easy to read and understand? | 4.25 | |
| Transparency | Do the materials appear transparent and open regarding the project? | 3.25 | |
| Business Plan Presentation | How well the business plan is presented? | 3.25 | |
| Technology Presentation | How well the technology is presented? | 3.75 | |
| Realism of the roadmap compared to the team size and budget | The roadmap is divided into 4 tiers according to different amounts of money raised | 3.05 | 2 |
| Concreteness | How concrete and measurable the milestones are? | 2.75 | |
| Feasiblity | Do the milestones make sense in terms of the project being successful if the milestones are reached? | 3.75 | |
| Vision | Is the vision easy to understand and what kind of impact it would cause? | 3.75 | |
| Dependencies (other services or capabilities required) | Does the project need other resources to thrive? | 3 | |
| Current Position | What has the project accomplished so far? | 2 | |
| Partnership network | Has the ICO announced partnerships, if so how big and credible companies are they? | 3.25 | 3 |
| Background of the managing organization | Has the managing organization a successful track record in business? | | 2 |
| Size of social media communities | How big are social media communities, especially Telegram and Twitter following? | 1.5 | 2 |
| Reviews on other ICO sites and media | Are there other reviews of the ICO available? | 3.5 | 2 |
| Is it easy to find the relevant information from the provided materials? | Is it easy to find the relevant information from the provided materials? | 4 | 1 |
