ICO Review: eInc

According to their website, eInc promises to be the “First Community based decentralized organization.”

That’s an incredibly bold statement, and no matter how you define “community based decentralized organization,” it is almost certainly a false statement. But just because we are ass clowns (🍑🤡) doesn’t mean we have to be assholes (🍑🕳) so we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt as we dive into our review.

The Team

As of this writing, and according to the eInc ICO website, the team consists of three founding members and seven advisors. As far as the founding members are concerned, they all have experience as entrepreneurs in various industries, including business, social media and marketing. However, we were unable to find anything in their background that suggests they have the depth of knowledge or technical ability to execute on the project described in their whitepaper. Luckily, that’s what advisors are for.

Unfortunately for the founding team, they did a rotten job selecting advisors who might be able to make the project successful. Instead, it appears that they simply opted for advisors who could help make the ICO successful.

Fun fact: An initial coin offering, or “ICO,” is not a company. It is a fundraising mechanism.

If the founding team had enlisted the help of advisors who could “fill in the gaps” in their own skill set, such as a blockchain architect, someone who had participated in developing the DAO (you know, the real first one), or just about anyone at all who was able and willing to assist them after the ICO finished, we could forgive them hiring one or two ICObench experts. But they hired seven.

We’ve seen firsthand that the chumps at ICObench don’t give a flying schtup about the success of the project, or anything that happens after the ICO closes, for that matter. Instead, the second the ICO clock ticks to zero, they take their cut and move on. And what a cut it is. eInc must have had some serious fat stacks laying around to pack seven of those fuckers on their advisory board.

Personally, we think they should have spent some of that extra dough trying to make their whitepaper less embarrassingly bad. Which brings us to…

The Whitepaper

The whitepaper is a total of 22 pages, a large percentage of which we like to call “whitepaper filler.” Examples include:

  • Various flaws in the Bitcoin blockchain (which might make sense if they were forking the Bitcoin blockchain, but they’re forking the Ethereum blockchain);
  • An explanation of how Merkle trees work, including other variations and a history of Merkle trees (which has nothing to do with their project);
  • A claim that they developed the programming language Serpent (which you can clearly see from the GitHub repo is an Ethereum development);
  • Lots of references to Turing completeness and how their solution will be Turing complete (without ever describing how they intend to do that);
  • A two-page treatise on the price of Gas on the Ethereum network (also irrelevant, but at least about Ethereum); and
  • Some standard Web3 to EVM bytecode code examples (that are not unique to their solution).

What’s really weird about the whitepaper, though, is why they go into so much detail about Bitcoin’s blockchain flaws and lack of certain capabilities. That’s because Ethereum already comes out of the box with almost all of the projects proposed features (which are crossed out below):

  • reducing block time from 15s to 6s
  • increasing network transaction per second by 2.5x
  • increasing transaction confirmation speed by 2.5x
  • increasing miner reward by 2.5x
  • removing uncle reward (This can reduce blockchain bloat but reduces security and deincentivizes smaller pools to mine, thereby centralizing the mining even more than it is today)
  • implementing finite supply for mineable coins (This is a choice not necessarily an improvement)
  • powerful inbuilt dApps (None of which are presented in the whitepaper)

So, in essence, their entire solution is just an exact copy of the Ethereum blockchain with a reduction in the fixed block time of 15 to 6 seconds. The rest of the advantages and improvements are based upon this one change except removing the uncle reward and a finite supply of mineable coins, which has no real bearing on improvements to the Ethereum blockchain. There is also some mention of “powerful inbuilt dApps,” but they are never explained.

If you’re going to cite “powerful inbuilt dApps,” why the fuck don’t you talk about them? They’re powerful, right? How powerful are they? Can they bench press like 250lbs? Huh? Can they? CAN THEY?!?

In summary, out of 22 pages of whitepaper, the total amount of content that arguably pertained to their solution was 2 pages. Their legal disclaimer was just as long.

The eInc Solution

Helpful Hint: When drafting a whitepaper, it is imperative that the project team explain their proposed solution so that the reader “gets it.”

Try as we might, we just didn’t get it. And some of us have been doing blockchain system development for years. Basically, all we got out of it (besides the 80% of the whitepaper trashing Bitcoin) is a claim that their Ethereum fork will reduce block time transactions to 6 seconds to gain an average of 2.5 times the throughput of the current Ethereum blockchain. In truth, that would be pretty impressive if the Ethereum blockchain could actually handle more than about 15-25 TPS. But since it can’t, there’s no way that we can see their solution adding value to the current Ethereum blockchain, fork or not. Especially with the many improvements scheduled for Ethereum blockchain soon.

In other words, the eInc Solution is a big fat nothingburger.

Plagiarism Shmagiarism

Just for shits and giggles, we decided to run eInc’s whitepaper through an online plagiarism checker, since so much of it seemed like unnecessary filler. The results surprised even us (which for a troupe of cynical ass clowns 🍑🤡 is pretty fucking hard to do)…

In other words, 79% of their entire whitepaper was lifted almost verbatim from the Ethereum Whitepaper.

All we can really say at this point is isn’t it funny how with seven top-tier ICObench “experts” on their advisory board, not a single fucking one of them bothered to mention to the founding team that their whitepaper was shit. 🤔

What Kermit said…

Conclusion

In summary, eInc is offering unsophisticated investors the following:

  1. a whitepaper that is nearly 80% plagiarized (with no credit given to the original source material);
  2. a solution that will be rendered obsolete before it is even released; and
  3. an advisory board that is great at convincing unsophisticated investors to throw money at projects they advise, but not so great at mentioning whether the whitepaper is plagiarized or the project is doomed to fail.

This may not be a scam, but it is about as close to one as you’ll find. Our Honest AF Rating on this project is a 0.1 –  Epic and total failure

UPDATE: Thanks to this review, we were able to see just how much of a racket ICObench has become, so we published a separate post called ICObench Warmer

eInc

0.1

Team

0.5/10

Tech

0.0/10

Token

0.0/10

Tilt

0.0/10

Pros

  • Great example of the worthlessness of ICObench "experts"

Cons

  • Unimpressive team
  • Entire board from ICObench
  • Plagiarism, plagiarism and more plagiarism
  • We've got a REAL bad feeling about this

Post Author: Grock

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.