9% weight

First review on 11 June 2018.



Found a rather negative review on EtherInc: https://www.tokenicide.com/review/einc/



I will revise my ratings after receiving point-by-point answers to the concerns in the above review.



****



CEO Tarun Malik; ICO team member replied on 11 Jun 2018

Hi Dr. Rex, It seems from your review that it is purely based on an article you saw on the Internet. As a reviewer I would ask you to do some research yourself. The said article is completely flawed and full of false claims:



1- Team: As per their article-EtherInc team doesn't have any technical experience.

Our team has worked in technical roles in many companies including Fortune 500 companies like Accenture, Saint-Gobain, PWC, Deloitte, Johnson&Johnson and many more. Moreover, our team member we already proved our technical ability by making the product live, so if you have concerns about the capabilities of the team then please check the product.



2- White-paper: As per their review our white paper is plagiarised.

You can check it yourself https://cdn.einc.io/assets/files/einc_whitepaper.pdf, and you will see that not a single line is copied from anywhere. Initially we also had a technical Whitepaper on the website which had the technical details about EtherInc blockchain which forked from Ethereum - hence there were similarities with Ethereum Whitepaper in the technical Whitepaper. We removed that document to avoid any confusion.



3- Product: We already have a live project and our vision is to bring all the organisations on the blockchain. We are in talks with some big companies to adopt eInc protocol and they are quite interested in eInc. Infact, we have already signed partnerships with companies who will use eInc.



I guess the review that you mentioned has many false claims about EtherInc, it looks like they haven't done their homework before publishing a review.



We have been reviewed by many reputable publications as well and they appreciate what we have done. Check this out >> https://hacked.com/ico-analysis-etherinc/



****



Updated review on 13 June 2018:



Reply to the above response by CEO Tarun:



1. I wish that you've replied me with a point-by-point responses as per my request but since you did not, I've helped you create a template for your response, with additional due diligence questions, you may fill in the answers here: https://goo.gl/nBRpEd



2. I will revise my ratings after receiving answers to the 17 questions.



****



Selected responses between 19Jun-20Jun from Douglas Lyon, Tarun and suspicious and possible EInc team member/advisor, etc (in IB's Telegram):

19.06.2018 09:18:15, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: Tokencide has made wild and ridiculous statements regarding icobench and advisors. And you use it as a reference?

19.06.2018 09:18:43, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: Why would you do that?

19.06.2018 09:19:52, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: You are connected with Grant and tokencide through Morpheus project yes?

19.06.2018 09:20:55, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: No serious evaluator or professional would quote this garbage with links in a review. What is your agenda here?

.....19.06.2018 09:40:16, Misery: >>messageActionChatJoinedByLink<<

19.06.2018 09:50:14, Misery: @dryeap All your ratings as an expert are giving projects 1/1/1! What is your agenda on Icobench exactly? 2.2 average rating..

19.06.2018 09:45:08, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: [[Webpage]]Anybody who read my review of Etherinc knows that you are making baseless allegation, refer to https://icobench.com/ico/etherinc

19.06.2018 09:50:25, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: An ICO project which CryptoBaron felt that I am wrong/unethical/ to ask the team to response to questions raised by a third-party

19.06.2018 09:53:57, Apollyon [@Apollyon]: Are you affiliated to tokencide?

19.06.2018 09:54:05, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: hey buddy

19.06.2018 09:54:15, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: he most certainly is

19.06.2018 09:54:18, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: For the 2nd time, no.

19.06.2018 09:54:28, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: Baseless accusation

19.06.2018 09:54:37, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: he is affiliated with or may even be grant gulovsen

19.06.2018 10:03:06, Misery: @dryeap Hopefully Icobench removes you. You are negative to this site! It is clear to see.

19.06.2018 10:03:46, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: he wants to see the projects suffer for some reason

19.06.2018 10:04:10, CryptoBaron [@Cheeky2U]: these are highly unethical practices

19.06.2018 10:04:24, Misery: Agree

19.06.2018 20:41:44, Tarun.eInc (EtherInc blockchain) [@tmalik7773]: And making accusations on us

19.06.2018 20:41:46, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: Hi Tarun, I spoke with Doug earlier and we cleared various misunderstanding. I want to right this wrong.

19.06.2018 20:42:43, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: I did not make any accusation if you read my review - however, I wanted clarifications which I believe you can provide

19.06.2018 20:43:49, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: That I will revise the rating once you clarify the concerns

19.06.2018 20:52:44, Tarun.eInc (EtherInc blockchain) [@tmalik7773]: Sir, what you did with ICObench was gave someone the worst rti g that they possibly can get and hold them hostage at your terms

19.06.2018 20:53:27, Tarun.eInc (EtherInc blockchain) [@tmalik7773]: And it both unfair and unethical

19.06.2018 21:16:23, Tarun.eInc (EtherInc blockchain) [@tmalik7773]: But keeping us hostage by a bad rating and keeping us in indefinite loop of questions is unacceptable

19.06.2018 21:22:10, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: There is no infinite loop of questions. There are 17 questions in the goo.gl document and let me know if you have no intention to reply them

*19.06.2018 21:36:54, Tarun.eInc (EtherInc blockchain) [@tmalik7773]: And also how did you came across tokenicide?

19.06.2018 21:41:57, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: Just need to reply within the google doc. Is it that difficult?

19.06.2018 21:42:17, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: Still avoiding the 17 questions, sigh.

19.06.2018 22:34:33, Tarun.eInc (EtherInc blockchain) [@tmalik7773]: @dryeap Your motives seems questionable to me

19.06.2018 22:35:32, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: That's because you don't understand how my DD approach works. I want to help you but you are refusing my help.

19.06.2018 22:45:55, Tarun.eInc (EtherInc blockchain) [@tmalik7773]: I need to understand your motivation behing this whole exercise and the hostage situation that we have here

19.06.2018 23:11:40, Aleksei Golubev bulleon.io / Bulleon ICO [@Bulleon_CTO]: Even though the questions might not be his, he is interested to ask them you personally as you can see. If I was you I wouldn't be evading questions like that in case they are all about fraud.

19.06.2018 23:14:13, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: Correct. Not their advisor (never will be) but trying to help a team that is refusing help - it must be so non-obvious to Tarun, Chris and even Doug (?)

20.06.2018 10:00:22, Misery: Does your wife beat you, and you take it out on ICOâ€™s

20.06.2018 10:00:53, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: I will let ICOBench decides if I'm a (a) valuable reviewer, or (b) toxic reviewer. Period.

20.06.2018 15:58:28, Misery: It is a shame the bench allow this type of behavior. This is a power trip for someone who is weak inside



****



Updated review on 20 June 2018:



1. Above is extract of some of the real-time communication with team members of EtherInc within the ICOBench telegram group, bundled with baseless and relentless threats, allegations and accusations.



2. My request for answers to 17 questions on 13 June 2018 was finally answered by Tarun (who is genuinely confused by my style of due diligence - but he is not alone, based on a few other responses by ICOBench reviewers and a few others).



3. For the benefit of Tarun, this is my standard angel investment due diligence approach and it has applied well in the ICO space in the filtering of scammy ICOs from the good ones. I am aware that I've put your through some stress as you may have been misled by one or more of your advisors that what I am doing is wrong and that I am Etherinc enemy - which I am not).



4. As far as the 17 questions are concerned:

(a) Q1 to Q6 are points extracted from the Tokencide review which raised some interesting questions that I was seeking further clarifications to. While his answers to the questions are at best 90% complete, it is sufficient for me to tell that Etherinc is unlike what the Tokencide website claim it is - heck, did the anonymous reviewer of Tokencide even reached out to Etherinc for clarifications? No.

(b) Good answer to Q7, Q8, Q9, Q15. While the answers to the rest of the questions are incomplete, as Tarun has said that "...keeping us in indefinite loop of questions is unacceptable", it is up to him if he wish to further clarify my responses to those answers of his - this is no longer mandatory.



5. As for this question regarding "how did you came across tokenicide?", while I need not reply this question since this is his ICO which is raising millions of dollars from the public, I will still do so any way as I have nothing to hide (ie. I am not related to Tokencide, for the 5th or 6th freaking time!):



Part 5a)

"19.06.2018 12:07:20, R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap]: {{FWD: R. Yeap (Dr.) [@dryeap], 19.06.2018 11:08:57}}

[[Webpage]]I review my notes that saw that the 1st review in tokencide that caught my attention was PinkDate"



Part 5b)

How did I got to know PinkDate? From a private message that Dennis Oosting sent me:

16.06.2018 23:57:41, Dennis [@LegitLaz]: [[Webpage]]Hey I saw your message. Ive done some 1/1/1 and other low ratings, check https://icobench.com/u/legitlaz



Part 5c)

5ci) I checked out Dennis's past ICO ratings and went through one of his 1 1 1 ratings to see if I can lend him my support:

5cii) PinkDate stood out as scammy to me and I started my DD on PinkDate, see my ICOBench review on PinkDate: https://icobench.com/ico/pinkdate/ratings

5ciii) One of the reddit article talks about the review at Tokenicide about Pinkdate. Pinkdate review on Tokenicide was deemed to have include several good points, good enough for me to call out Pinkdate as a "A potential ICO Exit Scam"



Part 5d)

Naturally, I was intrigued about Tokenicide and look at which other ICOs they have received that is also on ICOBench and Einc stood out, esp. the plagiarism claim. In the few universities that I am involved with, plagiarism is a very serious offense and students caught with plagiarism in the assignment gets an immediate zero for that assignment and in some institutions, more serious penalties.



Part 5e)

That's how we arrived at EInc review on 11 June 2018. I thought that I have made it very clear that "I will revise my ratings after receiving point-by-point answers to the concerns in the above review.", yes, point by point, and not selective answering of some questions and ignoring the rest. Well, that took is 9 days with much drama, threats, allegations and accusations.



6. I've since learned from a respectable ICOBench reviewer (though abrasive) that Tokenicide is deemed to be toxic and I will be very cautious if I come across further articles from their website, https://www.tokenicide.com/opinion/thank-you-icobench/ However, I have a looked at some of the Tokenicide allegations such as economic incentives portion and I believe that has some truth - based on some of the recent screen snapshots that were posted by a couple of the higher ratings ICOBench reviewers - I hope that ICOBench Tribunal Committee will investigate this matter throughly and to take care of these monkey business so that the reputation of the honest reviewers are not tainted along with these money grabbing reviewers.



7. I am now revising now ratings for EInc from T=1 V=1 P=1 to T=3 V=4 P=3



8. Best wishes for your ICO.

+1 Agree +1

-2