I'm a little confused by this analysis. The founding members are certainly well educated, but their only credits are consulting (type not specified) and a Data analyst/due diligence analyst. No comment on their computer science background, or blockchain background.

The author also points out that this coin sets itself up for speculation. I understood your words to imply the only utility value in this was for speculation, and that the real-world value would come in almost by accident (if it replaced Enigma).

I can see how the Chinese market may engage with this coin, but it seemed like there are quite a few uncertainties to warrant so much support in the conclusion. Not trying to spread FUD, I just wasn't expecting a recommendation after the article.