The purpose of this analysis is to dissect the Staramba ITO (really an ICO, but projects think putting up ‘ITO’ somehow gives them more cover against the SEC for some reason)
(General Terms and Conditions for the purchase of STARAMBA.Token Initial Token Offering (ITO))
According to the ‘General Terms and Conditions’, “These General Terms and Conditions apply to the sale of the STARAMBA.Token within the framework of the Initial Token Offering (ITO)”.
Here are my preliminary comments (before reading through this paper):
· A Terms and Conditions is a positive thing. Shows that there is some concern for legal ramifications and that the company is looking to provide transparency (i.e., through a seemingly, legal binding agreement).
· The terms in the Terms and Conditions are legitimate. I’m not seeing any clauses or ‘flaws’ within the T&C that are cause for concern.
· It is definitely well within their right to cancel the token sale at any point in time (barring them cancelling the project itself without refund).
There isn’t much more to glean from the General Terms and Conditions section of the paper.
The fact that they are restricting U.S. customers and those in other regions from purchasing the tokens is a positive sign. This, in addition, to the General Terms and Conditions shows a strong effort to be within legal compliance.
However, there is never a guarantee in this space, so definitely take that with a grain of salt at all times.
Let’s move forward here in this analysis.
You can find a copy of the lightpaper here: https://www.staramba.com/static/download/20180613_Staramba_Lightpaper_EN.pdf
They Start Off With the Intro:
I think that the prowess and demands of ‘Virtual Reality’ are grossly overstated here, but that’s just marketing. Can’t fault anyone for pumping up their own brand/product.
The general gist that I am getting here from reading through the lightpaper is that they are looking to create virtual reality simulations of different ‘spaces’ (hence the name) where athletes, musicians and other famous entertainers/figures live/roam/visit on a frequent basis.
The idea, in a nutshell, is not a terrible one. I’m not sure if there’s necessarily a ‘demand’ for it, but with extremely effective marketing as well as the onboarding of relevant celebrities, I would imagine that this is possible.
Although Paris Hilton is a ‘big name’ in some senses, I’m not entirely sure that her onboarding really makes a difference. For a lot of celebrities, all you really need to do is just approach them with a certain amount of money and they’ll hop on board for damn near anything — especially a figure like Paris Hilton.
There is no way on God’s green earth that these folks are going to be able to successfully launch that token for $1.00, I’m just letting you know that right now.
That’s a super ambitious price valuation. I would count more on the $0.05/range soon after lift off as investors dump it on the open market and I’m not sure what would bring it back up short of support from big ICO-pump names like Ian Ballina or other individuals. If those people are not behind it, I wouldn’t really recommend it.
They own 40% of the token supply plus a “200k reserve” (which I’m wary of, because that should always be part of the disclosed total token supply that is not subject to mutability).
I’m not saying that’s a scam, I just don’t think that there needs to be an additional 200k tokens that may/may not be introduced into the general token supply (sounds like a great way for the team to liquidate an extra $2M+ if necessary — and for what?)
If 600M tokens are for sale (60% of 1B total tokens) and it’s going for .7-.10/token (approx.), then that means that the team is looking $45–60M (roughly), which is a fairly hefty amount.
With another 230M tokens in tow for ‘business development’, that amounts to an estimated $25M+ in funds.
Now, considering how much that VRs cost — https://appreal-vr.com/blog/vr-game-development-costs/ — this is probably reasonable if they want this project to actually be viable.
I’d like to see a roadmap (maybe I missed this?).
I’d love to see a viable business model (none of the admins were able to provide me with any viable information on what that would be, however they did point to who the developers are — which isn’t incredibly relevant to me at this point in time).
It would be awesome if there were a demo (perhaps there is and I missed it?), or something else.
The website is clean. I can’t lie.
I’m not a fan of ICOs from the jump, so, as you can imagine, I always go into any reviews that I do of them with a fairly pessimistic outlook.
The website pretty much tells us the same information that is within the lightpaper.
This website is a comforting sign. It shows that there is actually a real effort put forth to make this brand/project/whatever a genuine entity in the space.
Once again, I’m wondering if the money that they have raised is enough to manifest the project that they are projecting (in the grand scheme).
This is why I requested to see what the business model is for this project.
It will take more than this. I believe that they probably do have some deals inked with football clubs.
However, this will be more than just something that they can thrive through football clubs with. But I like the international aspect of everything. That’s definitely favorable with the football clubs.
I don’t see any information about how they plan to expend their competitive advantage in relation to other entities that are in the space.
I would like to see this as well as a SWOT analysis of some sort. That would be helpful as well — it’s needed.
I know for a fact that there are other giants in the VR space, and they will need to compete with these entities as well.
There is a dangerous lack of technological information. This is something that should be built on the blockchain.
I wouldn’t invest in it. 4/10 in terms of an investment that’s likely to garner any notable ROI.