SWOT Bot Logo
STEEM

360-Degree Analysis



Whitepaper Coverage

Assessment

Criteria: The whitepaper clearly describes the problem the project intends to solve.
Score: 5
Justification: The problem of unfair compensation for social media content creators and contributors is thoroughly and clearly defined.

Criteria: The target audience (and their needs) is well-defined and specific.
Score: 4
Justification: Targets content creators and contributors seeking fair rewards, though could be more specific in delineating different user segments.

Criteria: The project’s stated objectives logically align with the described problem.
Score: 5
Justification: Objectives directly address fair compensation and incentivization of content contributions through cryptocurrency.

Criteria: The whitepaper distinguishes this solution from existing alternatives.
Score: 5
Justification: Clearly differentiates Steem’s unique voting and reward mechanisms from existing social media platforms and other cryptocurrencies.

Criteria: The end goal is realistic and measurable within a reasonable timeframe.
Score: 3
Justification: End goal is clear but lacks specific milestones or timelines to assess feasibility.

Criteria: The chosen blockchain or ledger technology is convincingly justified.
Score: 4
Justification: Justifies the use of Graphene technology and contrasts it with other blockchain solutions, though could provide more detailed reasoning.

Criteria: The consensus mechanism (e.g., Proof of Work, Proof of Stake) is clearly explained and appropriate for the intended scale.
Score: 5
Justification: Consensus via elected witnesses is clearly explained and tailored for scalability and fairness.

Criteria: The technical innovations are clearly described and offer tangible advantages over comparable projects.
Score: 5
Justification: Describes innovations like rate limiting for transactions, subjective proof of work, and Steem Dollars, highlighting their benefits over existing systems.

Criteria: The whitepaper provides sufficient detail on smart contract logic or other core functionalities.
Score: 3
Justification: Provides conceptual details on functionalities but lacks in-depth technical implementation specifics.

Criteria: The overall design appears robust and future-proof.
Score: 4
Justification: Design addresses key challenges and scalability, though some aspects of long-term robustness could be more elaborated.

Criteria: The token’s role (utility, governance, etc.) is well-defined and easy to understand.
Score: 5
Justification: Clearly defines the roles of STEEM, Steem Power, and Steem Dollars with distinct purposes.

Criteria: The token distribution (premine, team allocation, community, investors) is fair and transparent.
Score: 3
Justification: Explains initial allocation and inflation rates but lacks detailed transparency on team allocations and distribution fairness.

Criteria: The inflation/deflation model is clearly explained with a solid rationale.
Score: 5
Justification: Thoroughly explains the inflation model, decreasing rates, and mechanisms to control inflation and maintain currency stability.

Criteria: The whitepaper outlines how token value may increase as adoption grows.
Score: 4
Justification: Discusses network effects and increased demand through user contributions, though could detail specific adoption strategies.

Criteria: Adequate incentives are in place for token holders, validators, and developers to support the ecosystem.
Score: 5
Justification: Describes reward structures for content creators, voters, Steem Power holders, and witnesses, providing strong incentives.

Criteria: The decision-making process (on-chain/off-chain governance) is structured and transparent.
Score: 4
Justification: Describes the election of witnesses and voting weighted by Steem Power, but could provide more details on transparency mechanisms.

Criteria: The project provides mechanisms for active community participation in governance.
Score: 5
Justification: Active participation through voting on witnesses and content rewards is clearly outlined.

Criteria: The level of decentralization (e.g., node count, geographic distribution) is realistically addressed.
Score: 3
Justification: Addresses the role of witnesses in decentralized block production but lacks detailed information on node distribution and geographic spread.

Criteria: The relationship between core developers and the broader community is clearly outlined.
Score: 2
Justification: Does not clearly define the relationship between developers and the community.

Criteria: The whitepaper shows how the governance model can evolve alongside the project.
Score: 3
Justification: Mentions adaptability through witness voting and feed adjustments but lacks detailed evolution mechanisms.

Criteria: The roadmap includes clear milestones with timelines.
Score: 1
Justification: The whitepaper does not provide a roadmap or specific milestones.

Criteria: The proposed deadlines and goals are achievable given the project’s complexity.
Score: 1
Justification: No deadlines or goals are outlined in the whitepaper.

Criteria: The roadmap is logically linked to the project’s required resources (funding, team expansion, etc.).
Score: 1
Justification: No roadmap or resource allocation information is provided.

Criteria: Each roadmap phase contributes meaningfully toward the final project objectives.
Score: 1
Justification: No roadmap phases are included in the whitepaper.

Criteria: The whitepaper explains how progress will be tracked and communicated to stakeholders.
Score: 1
Justification: The whitepaper does not explain progress tracking or communication methods.

Criteria: The team is introduced with names, roles, and relevant experience.
Score: 1
Justification: The whitepaper does not introduce the team members or their backgrounds.

Criteria: The whitepaper names relevant partners or collaborations (e.g., technical or business partners).
Score: 2
Justification: Limited mention of partnerships or collaborations, lacking detail.

Criteria: The team has demonstrable expertise in blockchain or related sectors.
Score: 1
Justification: No information about the team’s expertise is provided.

Criteria: The project has an active and engaged online community.
Score: 3
Justification: Indicates the presence of a community but lacks specific details on the level of engagement.

Criteria: A clear strategy is in place to grow and sustain community engagement.
Score: 3
Justification: Some elements like reward systems support engagement, but lacks a detailed growth strategy.

Criteria: The project has undergone or plans to undergo an independent security audit (e.g., by CertiK, ConsenSys).
Score: 1
Justification: No mention of security audits in the whitepaper.

Criteria: The whitepaper highlights potential security risks and corresponding mitigation strategies.
Score: 3
Justification: Addresses some security aspects like fraud minimization and rate limiting but lacks a comprehensive risk analysis.

Criteria: There is a bug bounty program or other incentive for reporting vulnerabilities.
Score: 1
Justification: No mention of a bug bounty program or similar incentives.

Criteria: The project addresses privacy and data protection in line with best practices.
Score: 1
Justification: Privacy and data protection are not discussed in the whitepaper.

Criteria: The whitepaper references relevant security standards (e.g., ISO guidelines, known industry practices).
Score: 1
Justification: No references to security standards are provided.

Criteria: The whitepaper identifies key competitors and explains how this project stands out.
Score: 4
Justification: Identifies platforms like Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter as competitors and explains Steem’s unique reward mechanisms.

Criteria: The target market or industry for the project appears promising.
Score: 5
Justification: Targets the large and established social media market with clear needs for fair compensation mechanisms.

Criteria: A coherent strategy is presented for gaining market share or creating a new market segment.
Score: 4
Justification: Outlines strategies like rewarding content creators and curators to drive network effects, though lacks detailed marketing plans.

Criteria: The whitepaper discusses major market risks (regulation, competition, technical barriers).
Score: 2
Justification: Minimal discussion on market risks such as regulation and competition.

Criteria: The project’s unique selling points are convincing and clearly articulated.
Score: 5
Justification: Unique features like rate-limiting transactions, subjective proof of work, and Steem Dollars are clearly and convincingly presented.

Criteria: The whitepaper addresses relevant regulations (KYC/AML, securities laws, etc.).
Score: 1
Justification: Regulatory considerations are not addressed in the whitepaper.

Criteria: The project has a plan to adapt to evolving regulations across different jurisdictions.
Score: 1
Justification: There is no discussion on adapting to changing regulations.

Criteria: The project’s legal structure (foundation, corporation, etc.) is clearly explained.
Score: 1
Justification: The legal structure of the project is not explained.

Criteria: The approach to user data and privacy complies with relevant laws.
Score: 1
Justification: Privacy and data protection approaches are not discussed.

Criteria: The whitepaper indicates a willingness to work with regulators and other authorities.
Score: 1
Justification: No indication of working with regulators or authorities.

Criteria: The whitepaper clarifies how new users are onboarded (ease of use, educational resources).
Score: 3
Justification: Mentions earning STEEM through contributions and voting but lacks detailed onboarding processes and resources.

Criteria: Specific use cases are described that provide immediate value.
Score: 4
Justification: Describes use cases around social media content creation, voting, and reward distribution, providing immediate value to users.

Criteria: The team has a concrete marketing strategy to drive adoption.
Score: 1
Justification: No marketing strategy is outlined in the whitepaper.

Criteria: The importance of user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) is evident.
Score: 3
Justification: Implied through system design for ease of voting and rewards, but lacks specific emphasis on UI/UX design principles.

Criteria: The project actively encourages external developers to build on its platform.
Score: 1
Justification: No mention of encouraging external developers or providing development tools.
5-Point Rating Scale
  • 5 = Strongly Agree – Highly positive and fully addressed.
  • 4 = Agree – Positive and mostly addressed.
  • 3 = Neutral – Moderately addressed, some gaps.
  • 2 = Disagree – Mostly not addressed, some inconsistencies.
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree – Not addressed or clearly contradictory.