What is Konios about
Enable users to exchange cash to crypto currencies on a decentralized P2P bases. Including a marketplace to locally or worldwide buy/sell stuff in exchange for crypto.
Konios has its headquarter and administration in the canton of Zug, Switzerland. The role of managing director and contact person is exercised by the co-founder Patrik Krasnic. In close cooperation with the lawyers of BÜHLMANN KOENIG & PARTNER AG, all regulatory obligations are fulfilled. The supporting bank also has its registered office in Switzerland and is subject to Swiss banking law.
Konios Project ICO Review and Analysis
Review and analysis of Konios Project by ICO analysts:
Strengths
- Large and highly endorsed team with relevant backgrounds
- Roadmap seems realistic and achievable. Roadmap is simple, clean and doesn’t contain unnecessary milestones
- Hard cap seems realistic and quite attractive considering the team and goal for funding
- Massive social media communities acquired already. Good reviews and good amount of media coverage found on organic Google searches
Potential concerns
- Tokenization model could be hard to understand for investors
Konios Project ICO Rating: A
Konios Project rating breakdown by ICO analysts:
| Rating category | Rating | Comments |
|---|
| Team legitimity | 4.1 | |
| LinkedIn Profiles | 3.75 | |
| Background of Lead Team Members | 4.25 | Large and highly endorsed team with relevant background |
| Team Assembly and Commitment | 4 | |
| Team Skill Set Relevance | 4 | |
| Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain) | 4.5 | |
| First Impression | 3.75 | There are some existing competitors already |
| Potential of tokenization model | 3.2 | Tokenization model could be hard to understand for investors |
| Blockchain Development | 3 | |
| Disruptive Blockchain Advantage | 3 | |
| Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH) | 2.5 | |
| System Decentralization (besides token) | 3.5 | |
| Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem | 4 | |
| Hard Cap | 4 | Hard cap seems realistic and quite attractive considering the team and goal for funding |
| Token allocation + Fund allocation | 3 | Pretty average funds allocation presented |
| Professionalism of the available material | 3 | |
| Comprehensiveness | 3 | |
| Readability | 2.5 | |
| Transparency | 3 | |
| Business Plan Presentation | 4 | |
| Technology Presentation | 3 | |
| Realism of the roadmap compared to the team size and budget | 3.7 | Roadmap seems realistic and achievable. Roadmap is simple, clean and doesn’t contain unnecessary milestones |
| Concreteness | 3.5 | |
| Feasiblity | 4 | |
| Vision | 4 | |
| Dependencies (other services or capabilities required) | 4 | |
| Current Position | 3 | |
| Partnership network | 4 | Few relevant partnerships presented on the website |
| Background of the managing organization | - | |
| Size of social media communities | 4.5 | Massive social media communities acquired already |
| Reviews on other ICO sites and media | 4.5 | Good reviews and good amount of media coverage found on organic Google searche |
| Is it easy to find the relevant information from the provided materials? | 3.5 | Some of the information was quite hard to find but overall really good white paper and website |
