| A | B | |
|---|---|---|
1 | MarsBase | |
2 | Entry Score ( Januar ) | 70.03% |
3 | Total Score (May) | 80,25% |
4 | ||
5 | Team Score, % | 86,00% |
6 | Technology Score, % | 85,19% |
7 | Market Score, % | 96,00% |
8 | Business Model Score, % | 93,33% |
9 | Backing Score, % | 58,82% |
10 | Tokenomics Score, % | 72,73% |
11 | Community Score, % | 69,70% |
12 | ||
13 | ||
14 | Team Section (0-50) | |
15 | Leadership (0-10) | 9 |
16 | Technical Expertise (0-10) | 8 |
17 | Industry Connections (0-5) | 4 |
18 | Track Record (0-5) | 4 |
19 | Team Size (0-5) | 3 |
20 | Diversity (0-5) | 5 |
21 | Trackers' Feedback (0-5) | 5 |
22 | Full-Time Ratio (0-5) | 5 |
23 | Team Score | 43 |
24 | Team Score, % | 86,00% |
25 | As previously mentioned in the report, the team's scores across various metrics, such as Industry Connections, Diversity, Leadership, and Background Relevance, have positioned it among the top-performing teams in our database. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the team's overall background, while commendable, falls short of receiving the highest mark due to the absence of unconditional Tier-1 crypto-related work experience. Despite the founding team's undeniable expertise in financial derivatives and extensive experience in the OTC field, the crypto sector's specificity renders it too niche to obtain the highest scores, irrespective of the team's exceptional qualities. | |
26 | ||
27 | Technology (0-27) | |
28 | Scalability (0-5) | 5 |
29 | Security (0-5) | 3 |
30 | Innovation (0-5) | 4 |
31 | Use Cases (0-5) | 4 |
32 | MVP (0-5) | 5 |
33 | Roadmap (0-2) | 2 |
34 | Technology Score | 23 |
35 | Technology Score, % | 85,19% |
36 | MarsBase has garnered a noteworthy score in the Technology section due to its potential to disrupt the OTC market, which caters primarily to institutional traders. While this market segment may not be the largest, the project is targeting a specific audience with a proven track record of generating revenue. It is worth noting that the project's key features have the potential to unlock access to investment opportunities for retail investors as well, by removing cumbersome verification and qualification requirements and adding more assets. This, in turn, has the potential to create a more inclusive financial ecosystem. The project's features and capabilities are versatile enough to cater to the broader DeFi sector, making it a robust solution for traders across the board. The project's focus on disrupting the OTC market while also democratizing access to investment opportunities for retail investors is highly promising. If the development activity is improved and a security audit is conducted by a reputable firm, the project can be expected to achieve a maximum score in the Technology section, given the current evaluation parameters. | |
37 | ||
38 | Market (0-25) | |
39 | Market Size (0-5) | 5 |
40 | Competition (0-5) | 5 |
41 | Regulatory Landscape (0-5) | 5 |
42 | Go-To-Market Strategy (0-5) | 5 |
43 | User Adoption (0-5) | 4 |
44 | Market Score | 24 |
45 | Market Score, % | 96,00% |
46 | The crypto OTC (Over-The-Counter) market is a relatively opaque market that is not easily tracked, making it difficult to estimate its precise size. However, some estimates suggest that it accounts for a significant portion of cryptocurrency trading volumes. For instance, a report by Chainalysis estimated that in 2020, the OTC market accounted for over $9 billion in monthly trading volume. It's worth noting that this figure is from three years ago. Overall, the market evaluation conducted by the MarsBase team, as outlined in their documentation, along with their future projections, appears accurate and lucrative for early investors. Notably, the project's custom development efforts and hypothesis testing have been robust, contributing significantly to its strong Market Score. | |
47 | ||
48 | Business Model (0-15) | |
49 | Revenue Model (0-5) | 5 |
50 | Pricing Strategy (0-5) | 5 |
51 | Retention Model (0-5) | 4 |
52 | Business Model Score | 14 |
53 | Business Model Score, % | 93,33% |
54 | The Business Model Score for this project is higher than average, indicating that the team has put considerable thought into the project's revenue streams and overall business strategy. However, there are still some areas that require clarification from the team, such as their pricing strategy and customer retention strategy. While the team has demonstrated an understanding of their target audience and market opportunity, it is important that they have a clear pricing strategy to maximize revenue potential and a solid plan to retain customers and build long-term relationships with them. We look forward to seeing how the team addresses these areas in the coming months, which we expect will lead to a further increase in the Business Model Score. | |
55 | ||
56 | Backing (0-17) | |
57 | Strategic Partnerships (0-5) | 4 |
58 | Investors (0-5) | 1 |
59 | Funding Amount (0-5) | 3 |
60 | Self-Funding (0-2) | 2 |
61 | Backing Score | 10 |
62 | Backing Score, % | 58,82% |
63 | Despite the overall score being relatively low, the project has earned points in the self-funding section, which is worth noting. The team has self-funded a significant amount, with a sum of $800k being the highest in our current batch of startups. Naturally, in this section, a project can hit a good score as long as it has attracted funding and strategic partnerships. However, this project has yet to secure any VC onboard or notable partnerships to date. While this may be a challenge for the team, their self-funding efforts and dedication to the project are admirable and a positive sign for its potential future success. | |
64 | ||
65 | Tokenomics (0-11) | |
66 | Utility (0-5) | 4 |
67 | Centralisation (0-3) | 2 |
68 | Vesting (0-3) | 2 |
69 | Tokenomics Score | 8 |
70 | Tokenomics Score, % | 72,73% |
71 | The MarsBase project's distribution strategy and marketing efforts might raise some concerns among discerning investors. While the emphasis on bounty programmes and marketing rewards is understandable, it may not be the most effective way to distribute tokens to potential users. Furthermore, the centralization of nearly 40% of the token supply may deter investors, who prefer to see a more evenly distributed supply. However, the project's token utility is well-designed, with the token serving as a key component for all users of MarsBase services. The unique features aimed at institutional traders could potentially generate a significant amount of buy pressure, driving the token price upwards. What's more, the project's willingness to consider investors on equity principles rather than solely token sales offers an additional opportunity for investors seeking a more traditional investment model. In the near future, we are going to undertake a comprehensive audit of the designed vesting schedule, identifying the weak points, should there be any. As of now, all things considered, the tokenomics score for the MarsBase project is satisfactory, but there is potential for improvement. | |
72 | ||
73 | Community (0-33) | |
74 | Size (0-5) | 1 |
75 | Engagement (0-5) | 1 |
76 | Socials (0-5) | 5 |
77 | Web Traffic (0-4) | 4 |
78 | Open Source (0-5) | 3 |
79 | Community Management (0-2) | 2 |
80 | Response Time (0-2) | 2 |
81 | KOLs (0-5) | 5 |
82 | Community Score | 23 |
83 | Community Score, % | 69,70% |
84 | "While the project has a strong presence on various social media platforms and maintains an open-source platform for contributors, its engagement and overall traction in the market need to be more active. The team's primary focus at the moment is to onboard investors, and it is evident that this area requires significant improvement in terms of visibility and outreach. Nonetheless, the team's commitment to fostering a collaborative community and maintaining a transparent approach to development is commendable and bodes well for the project's long-term success. Update March 17 - the project got followed by https://twitter.com/IamNomad - well done! Arguably the most influential/quality KOL in the entire batch so far. There are two metrics that need improvement: AQU (Average Quality Users) dominance and the percentage of low-quality users in the follower count. AQU dominance refers to the percentage of users who are considered ""average quality,"" meaning they are not prominent influencers or likely to be bots or inactive accounts, but rather regular individuals like ourselves. Currently, we estimate MarsBase AQU dominance at 50.45%, which is below the industry average range of 60-65%. To increase AQU dominance, it's important to address the low-quality segment of the audience, which currently makes up 39.1% of the follower count, which is significantly higher than the industry median value (23,5%) for twitter accounts of similar size. By identifying and removing these low-quality users, the overall AQU dominance can be improved, attracting more high-quality followers to the account. This will help build a stronger and more engaged audience, which is essential for achieving social media goals. | |
85 | ||
86 | ||
87 | ||
88 | ||
89 | ||
90 | ||
91 | ||
92 | ||
93 | ||
94 | ||
95 | ||
96 | ||
97 | ||
98 | ||
99 | ||
100 |