I think the concept is really exciting. I see myself as a potential target audience of this platform. But one of the barriers I can see is the language is not very inclusive for those who are newbies to web3, tokens, etc. Looking at the mission statement as an example, there is a lot there that potentially can be confusing and dilute the actual brand messaging.

I would advise the team to deepen the work on the target audience and identify their drivers, barriers, and pain points, and create a crystal clear, inspiring, emotionally-driven brand story/messaging that speaks to them.

There is so much potential for this platform to take off, but it won't gain the desired reach with the usual way of tech-speak versus simplifying the language.

Continuum is a social learning platform that is gamifying education for designers and offering opportunities to creators by using Short-form videos and carousel content that earns rewards and NFTs.

Continuum

I think the concept is really exciting. I see myself as a potential target audience of this platform. But one of the barriers I can see is the language is not very inclusive for those who are newbies to web3, tokens, etc. Looking at the mission statement as an example, there is a lot there that potentially can be confusing and dilute the actual brand messaging.

I would advise the team to deepen the work on the target audience and identify their drivers, barriers, and pain points, and create a crystal clear, inspiring, emotionally-driven brand story/messaging that speaks to them. 

There is so much potential for this platform to take off, but it won't gain the desired reach with the usual way of tech-speak versus simplifying the language.

StoryOwl

The initial work is well done, but there is still room for improvement:

What is good already:

A clear and user-friendly website with an intuitive UI/UX.
Leaderboard - gamification of the user experience.
The platform already has interesting and useful courses.
A list of available experts is presented on the platform.
Launching an ambassador program.
Disadvantages:

Very small community on all social media channels, such as Twitter - 2000, Telegram - 100 people, and Discord - 3000.

These are the main platforms for interacting with the Web3 audience. However, I understand that the team may have been focused on the product until now and only recently announced the ambassador program (perhaps the active marketing phase has just begun).

It will be interesting to follow their progress and see how they can improve their marketing strategy to build a larger and more engaged community on social media channels.

Karlos

Continuum as a name has a deep and profound meaning that deserves at least one star if not two, very well thought out name for the brand, even better for  (the first) decentralized social learning platform to reward Creators and Learners, not sure if this is the first, but definitely worthy to explore given the listed investors that committed, let`s go deeper:


Concept:

Connecting creators and learners in WEB 3 is a noble mission, but i am extremely sceptical how one could learn the depth of subject matter in 30 mins 10 lessons in total, creates the feeling of slight fakeness and fueled by speculation to get target users excited to pursue to complete as many courses as possible to earn and content creators investing less required time to deliver quality.

Web:


Really enjoyed experiencing the website, listed content creators are portrayed like ambassadors, listed VCs are already validated in WEB 3, compelling design and gripping approach

Deck:

Well structured, well defined and problem addressed document, whitepaper well described, projections are subject to be questioned though, but the fact of having listed VCs increases credibility, instantly.

Team:


Celebrate and admire the diversity of the team, it`s not easy to work in multicultural team unless they are on the same page, aligned, and committed, all key team members have their public Linkedin accounts, social media looks consistent and credible.

Remarks:


It felt like content creators with bigger social media following were given more privilege based on questions than those that have expertise, purely by subjective point of view.


Social following is questionable and doubtful along with courses taken, subject for validation and more transparency

Continuum as a name has a deep and profound meaning that deserves at least one star if not two, very well thought out name for the brand, even better for  (the first) decentralized social learning platform to reward Creators and Learners, not sure if this is the first, but definitely worthy to explore given the listed investors that committed, let`s go deeper:


Concept:

Connecting creators and learners in WEB 3 is a noble mission, but i am extremely sceptical how one could learn the depth of subject matter in 30 mins 10 lessons in total, creates the feeling of slight fakeness and fueled by speculation to get target users excited to pursue to complete as many courses as possible to earn and content creators investing less required time to deliver quality. 


Web:


Really enjoyed experiencing the website, listed content creators are portrayed like ambassadors, listed VCs are already validated in WEB 3, compelling design and gripping approach

Deck:

Well structured, well defined and problem addressed document, whitepaper well described, projections are subject to be questioned though, but the fact of having listed VCs increases credibility, instantly. 

Team:


Celebrate and admire the diversity of the team, it`s not easy to work in multicultural team unless they are on the same page, aligned, and committed, all key team members have their public Linkedin accounts, social media looks consistent and credible. 

Remarks:


- It felt like content creators with bigger social media following were given more privilege based on questions than those that have expertise, purely by subjective point of view.


- Social following is questionable and doubtful along with courses taken, subject for validation and more transparency

Sun Tzu

The concept of this educational platform is based on the creator economy, which is currently a hot topic in the SocialFi narrative of Web3. While I am intrigued by the product at a high level  yet can not see how they plan to make it sustainable as a business model for the following reasons:

 The project's well-designed and intuitive UI/UX is a strong point.
 The working mobile apps and extensive database of courses are significant milestones for the project.
 While the subscription model is a strong point, there is not a clear description of its benefits on the website (e.g. as a startup founder, I would appreciate a concise and very clear explanation of how the platform could benefit me, especially given that this is already a pretty competitive field).

 The biggest current problem with "2earn" models is obvious. It's not clear how Continuum plans to stay out of the death loop of such models. While the Whitepaper mentions "Balancing Demand and Supply" and utilization, it is not enough to address the rise and fall of "2earn" models. All startups entering this field should fully understand the weak points and explain their outstanding mechanics. This is not a 'pre-Stepn" era anymore.
 Many figures in the deck do not correspond to social activity (a subjective assumption)
 At first glance, it is difficult to realize why there is a need for two types of economy units: tokens and NFTs (as stated in the Whitepaper). If the main purpose is to onboard new creators and learners, excessive use of all possible Web3 mechanics may not be a good idea.

To sum it up, all concerns are related to token economy and particularly to its design which strongly affects the entire business model(including allocations and so forth). Taking a deep dive into it is highly recommended. 4 stars despite the concerns mentioned above as I personally think that the creator economy is a feasible solution for the future of content creation so its worth supporting and critiquing such products appropriately.

The concept of this educational platform is based on the creator economy, which is currently a hot topic in the **SocialFi narrative** of Web3. While I am intrigued by the product at a high level  yet can not see how they plan to make it sustainable as a business model for the following reasons:

 - The project's well-designed and intuitive UI/UX is a strong point.
 - The working mobile apps and extensive database of courses are significant milestones for the project.
 - While the subscription model is a strong point, there is not a clear description of its benefits on the website (e.g. as a startup founder, I would appreciate a concise and very clear explanation of how the platform could benefit me, especially given that this is already a pretty competitive field).

 - The biggest current problem with "2earn" models is obvious. It's not clear how Continuum plans to stay out of the death loop of such models. While the Whitepaper mentions "Balancing Demand and Supply" and utilization, it is not enough to address the rise and fall of "2earn" models. All startups entering this field should fully understand the weak points and explain their outstanding mechanics. This is not a 'pre-Stepn" era anymore.
 - Many figures in the deck do not correspond to social activity (a subjective assumption)
 - At first glance, it is difficult to realize why there is a need for two types of economy units: tokens and NFTs (as stated in the Whitepaper). If the main purpose is to onboard new creators and learners, excessive use of all possible Web3 mechanics may not be a good idea.

**To sum it up**, all concerns are related to token economy and particularly to its design which strongly affects the entire business model(including allocations and so forth). Taking a deep dive into it is highly recommended. 4 stars despite the concerns mentioned above as I personally think that the creator economy is a feasible solution for the future of content creation so its worth supporting and critiquing such products appropriately.

EL Cap

I would like to study this project more, they present very impressive user numbers, "affiliate brands" and educators, but I'm also very skeptical.

300k courses completed doesn't stack up with less than 100 TG members and less than 2,000 Twitter followers. The web design is OK, but doesn't look like they've raised $2M usd. I also want to understand what "affiliate brands" really means (they mention huge names like Adobe, Fiverr, UPwork, Blender. They seem too big for the current stage of product development).

The numbers in the image attached look impressive until you think about it. It's extremely easy to start a course on the platform, so 400 courses in progress doesn't mean much. I've connected my wallet and started a quick course to try the platform. Does this count as a course in progress? What if I never finish the course? Would be more impressive if it was paid courses in progress.

4M reach of creators at present could just mean that a couple of their creators have a couple million followers on YouTube. However, these followings are very often dead. Many crypto projects have 100k+ twitter followers and get less than 10 retweets on their posts. Reach of creators on the waitlist makes even less sense.

It just feels like they're cherry picking numbers that sound impressive but don't give a clear picture of their actual traction. A simple chart of daily activity would settle this much more effectively.

Another weak point is their tokenomics. I haven't analyzed them deeply, but it looks like it's mainly a governance token. They say it's a utility token and list a lot of use cases for people to buy the token, but they often don't make much sense (they list traders as a driver of demand, for example). They don't seem to use revenues to support the token's value. So with the constant release I see little chance of demand outweighing supply. 25% team is way too high and vesting period is not very long. This is a very high level review, but it's not a good start.

On the flip side, their investor deck is exciting and makes them seem big. The website is also good (just not $2M good), and I like the concept; so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, meaning I'll give them 4 stars instead of 3. If they make the cut then I'll install the apps and give it a real spin. Almost everything they say requires closer scrutiny, which means more time. Time that I only want to spend if they make it to the next round.

I would like to study this project more, they present very impressive user numbers, "affiliate brands" and educators, but I'm also very skeptical. 

300k courses completed doesn't stack up with less than 100 TG members and less than 2,000 Twitter followers. The web design is OK, but doesn't look like they've raised $2M usd. I also want to understand what "affiliate brands" really means (they mention huge names like Adobe, Fiverr, UPwork, Blender. They seem too big for the current stage of product development).

The numbers in the image attached look impressive until you think about it. It's extremely easy to start a course on the platform, so 400 courses in progress doesn't mean much. I've connected my wallet and started a quick course to try the platform. Does this count as a course in progress? What if I never finish the course? Would be more impressive if it was paid courses in progress. 

4M reach of creators at present could just mean that a couple of their creators have a couple million followers on YouTube. However, these followings are very often dead. Many crypto projects have 100k+ twitter followers and get less than 10 retweets on their posts. Reach of creators on the waitlist makes even less sense. 

It just feels like they're cherry picking numbers that sound impressive but don't give a clear picture of their actual traction. A simple chart of daily activity would settle this much more effectively.

Another weak point is their tokenomics. I haven't analyzed them deeply, but it looks like it's mainly a governance token. They say it's a utility token and list a lot of use cases for people to buy the token, but they often don't make much sense (they list traders as a driver of demand, for example). They don't seem to use revenues to support the token's value. So with the constant release I see little chance of demand outweighing supply. 25% team is way too high and vesting period is not very long. This is a very high level review, but it's not a good start. 

On the flip side, their investor deck is exciting and makes them seem big. The website is also good (just not $2M good), and I like the concept; so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, meaning I'll give them 4 stars instead of 3. If they make the cut then I'll install the apps and give it a real spin. Almost everything they say requires closer scrutiny, which means more time. Time that I only want to spend if they make it to the next round.

Continuum

Web3 Social Learning Platform