21 June, 2018

Framework for evaluating projects

Our goal at 3.0 Capital is to help catalyze the growth and adoption of crypto assets and blockchain technology. We believe that many of these projects have the opportunity to reshape the current power dynamic and create meaningful opportunities for people across the world. As a fund, when we started investing more actively in the ecosystem, we started to see more and more projects hit our inboxes. We were simply unable to keep up with the number of opportunities we were seeing and therefore needed to create an evaluation framework to streamline our investment process.

What you see below is our first attempt, our ‘v1’ if you will, of our investment evaluation framework. We have decided to call this our “Win Framework” because it helps us determine what teams and project we believe have the best chance of building something that matters. No, we won’t get it right every time, and we will evolve this framework once we have the data to track our results. In addition, we will start to share publicly many of our project evaluations in order to engage the community and get feedback.

I hope you enjoy taking a look under the hood...

1. Litmus test (analogous to a filter)

Review official website, documentation, whitepaper, press coverage, sentiment, critical opinion, telegram chats

Look for elementary errors/inconsistencies.

2. Fundamentals

Does the project need/benefit from a token?

Does the project need/benefit from being on the blockchain?

Where does this project fit in the stack? Base level protocol, dApp, cross-chain communication, scaling, etc

Is there an existing business behind the project, is this business successful or growing?

Scope of problem being solved

Current market size, projected market size

Scope for the project to be a key component of the ecosystem/niche

Team Track record of success (previous companies, money raised, scope of success) Capability of delivering (assessed during meetings/interactions) Enthusiasm, intensity, confidence AngelList, Crunchbase data



3. Technicals

Whitepaper

Smart contracts and security audits

Code Github code quality, documentation Plagiarism

Token economics Percentage of tokens team is keeping for themselves and vesting schedule Incentive structure Utility/security token What has been done on the regulatory side Airdrop structure Token vesting structure On chain activity: frequency of token movement



4. Product

On boarding process: identify points where there is a lot of friction

How the project utilizes network effects

Consumers perception of the product

Marketing and growth strategy - traction?

Roadmap Progress so far Github commit frequency



5. Competition