since majority of posts are ICO related - ill start a utility thread on this token based on my personal analysis. disclaimer: this is mostly a devils advocate article, I applaud the clarity of the whitepaper - its not filled with overly technical jargon (although I'm a former engineer) it wasnt a difficult read. its exciting to see disruptors disrupting each other). I apologize if i misinterpreted elements of the whitepaper as i did skim it quickly (action on this token is moving quick and thought the community could use some real discussion). feel free to correct anything i misstated.

Business Model: Overall, I like it primarily because those burdening the most risk of a home sharing economy and delivering utility are the hosts - and they get paid more with beenest. Hosts can then (if they want) pass on costs to renters, making cost of rentals even cheaper. Hotels have their work cut out for them.

Fee Structure - OK but have concerns - undercutting the incumbent is an aggressive play typically - a sustainable business model where undercutting the competitors revenue model (typically) requires a significantly larger amount of transactions (where economies of scale could kick in offsetting fixed costs) - Dell versus Apple as an example. Another alternative is it could be much more efficient operating model to run a blockchain network whereas, AirBNB has to have an infrastructure team building on AWS. Support costs could be lower as well if the Arbitration model works. (The network self regulates arbitration between hosts/renters and anonymous third party token owners) there are far less costs to maintaining a decentralized transaction business it would seem (brilliant!)

Fees: 1) Platform Fee (3%-15% - why the variance? I would focus on AirBNBs fee (unless its variable). 2) Financial Institutions Fees (3%) - my impression this is imposed on AirBNB - but not really sure - if AirBNB passes it to the host, then yes that is a big cut 3) Foreign Transaction Fees (3%) / Currency Conversion (1%) - seems limited to foreign travel - typically US to foreign exchange currency - did not look at AirBNB revenue distribution, but if they have revenues outside U.S, this could be significant.

KYC (know your customer reputation model) - similar to AirBNB except you require a crypto wallet - no way around not needing a wallet though - but has user early adoption issues - not many know how to leverage a crypto wallet and is obviously unsafe in the hands of a regular user - crypto wallet hardware supply is low at the moment

The Bee Protocols - love it - even if the home sharing app isn't great (not saying it wont be) - it is reusable protocol for the Uber of XYZ (basically any sharing economy model.

Arbitration model - its got this U.S. law kind of feel - where a panel helps make decisions on renter to rentee disputes. The part that bothers me is that it seems like the richest folk will basically become the panel and thus the decision of arbitration is not really left to the average person ( like the U.S. legal system). Since its seems to be based on proof of stake (largest token holders) - renters and home owners fate is left in the hands of the richer 1%.

While this is an innovative way to leverage blockchain mechanics, i cant fathom why an independent third party should care about a rental dispute between two private parties? At its surface, they are looking to get paid a dividend for being token holders, but how are arbiters regulated for making bad decisions that renters/rentees dont like ("Arbiters are not penalized for incorrect decisions.")? It says they are only punished for not making a decision timely (this is only in the interest of Beenest and Arbiters, not renters/home owners - this is not customer first thinking… fellow renters/homeowners - do you want speed in disputes or do you want fairness? accelerating arbitration has a tinder like feeling to not be taken very seriously. i did read there are consequences if renters/hosts frequently complain so at least there is a good checks and balances (the appeals process). hopefully the system works out such that small stake owners can participate frequently and not just whales - as described it favors those with larger tokens (its random selection and also a voluntary action - you have to "stake" your tokens into an arbitration "pool" to increases "jury" selection chances (whales can stake more than little guys) - this is the same concept in ethereum to stake your coins in favor of an ethereum protocol decision (the difference is that stake is used to satisfy the entire ethereum community whereas this stake (IMO) is in favor of just Beenest and Arbiters (to get paid more quickly - fairness cannot be rushed which may be the most limiting aspect) - fortunately disputes are infrequent (?) - not sure really

One issue that sometimes only a central authority can handle is that both party sides may never come to an agreeable resolution (this seems quote common honestly - when large sums of money are refunded/etc, someone will be upset if they dont get 100%) and the intermediary sometimes has to take the financial burden. In this case, the arbiter takes the penalty, not Beenest. Airbnb may for example decide a particular case was the fault of the renter, but because the renter is a good frequent customer, they may decide to overlook it and give the renter a small reputation penalty. Amazon frequently concedes credits to buyers when UPS screws up - its not Amazon's fault, but its their way of buying loyalty. A decentralized platform has no such loyalty protections and the arbiters have only limited skin in the game to improve Beehive's loyalty/retention rates (keys to keeping your customers around). Yes they get money based on stake, but chances are, each arbiter doesnt have majority stake (<10% maybe) where it makes a difference. Limited equity holders (realize its not equity but the relationships are similar) typically want a passive dividend payout and nothing more, i have only a micro-equity stake in this company's future success in reality (the average token holder will have this mindset). arbitration requires quite a bit of participation, so hopefully the dividend returns are high and pays well for fairness (not speed). I think the Arbitration model needs proving - has this been used in any other business model successfully?

The biggest thing the token has for it (as all other tokens) - is price volatility - I can pay less fees (fiat) as tokens price go up (fees are paid in token fiat value at the time of transaction, but your token increase in value the more popular the network is yet rents and hosting i believe is still paid in fiat (for fairness of rental price) - wasnt too clear on that. that may influence the network to make good arbitration decisions in best interest of the token price.

Beating AirBNB- issues with early adoption Token owners are early adopters (tech enthusiasts, investors with no interest in home rental?) acquiring cryptotokens is not straightforward (think about buying binance coin versus buying with coinbase for a second) - renters and home owners are majority market users (aka general populace). To meet the fee value proposition fully, on-boarding by requiring a token to be purchased will come with high barriers to entry affecting adoption. The process of buying with BeeTokens would have to be very easy to make a dual sided network (renters and homeowners) work. If one side of this network does not adopt as highly, it will not succeed. This has long term benefits for network effects once successful, but there is already an incumbent and that can be difficult to penetrate. Launching in SF is probably a good way to test out that market - if any city has more crypto wallets then others, it is probably SF.

Nice roadmap - will be following it

Share your thoughts, I'm curious for what you think as well.