I am not sure what Stellerro does, I just stated the fact this project was lead by the same team that lead Bitjob.
Yes, I can back my story up.

1. Look at the attached distribution table. It states 64% of tokens would be owned by contributors. Well, it wasn't as successful as planned, only few % was captured, and the rest, instead of being burned, ended up with the team.
2. Now go and check the attached roadmap, and then join their Telegram group and ask them when was the product released, and what's their future plan.
3. Many sweet words about variety of universities, even Dutch government is into it - Now go and check what universities are actually involved now and at which rate. I am not sure if there's any, but some in Israel. I don't have any numbers as they wouldn't reveal them, but you should understand my skepticism.

All in all, I just shared my experience with the team, ymmv, but don't call me a fudder.  

...it seems I am not able to attach the screenshots from the white paper, but here's the link: https://www.chainwhy.com/upload/default/20180625/09609312fb22d5aa3b44f9b7425a8a5c.pdf Pages 12 and 20

Well, check my post #19 in this thread. I have first hand experience with this team, and it wasn’t a positive one.

These threads are funny, so here's my view on the project.

The team knows what they are doing i.e. it is not a scam, but their goals are much different then those of contributors so here's my opinion on this.

1. Initial whitepaper had 64% of tokens dedicated for Presale & Crowfunding

Only about 5% tokens were actually sold, maybe even less. So the team decided to use those tokens for something else. There was an airdrop, but it only moved ICO contributors to some 12% *maybe the numbers are not correct as it was long time ago, but they are close to what I wrote.

Basically, those who participated in ICO and started up the project, ended up holding minority of the tokens.
Large amount of tokens were given away through bounties and not sure what else.

End result, those who didn't contribute didn't have any motivation to hold the token so there was a lot of low sell. Who was the loser, of course ICO contributors.
The price of token is so low that it is a very good entry point for potential investors, but the price for it was paid from initial contributors, and I consider this disrespectful (my opinion).

Cheers!!! 

BTW It's not about the fast return, as my point is: Had the team burned unsold tokens, there would have been less tokens for them to give away, and the project would probably need even more time to develop. Yet they decided to use those tokens to further develop project in a way that hugely impacted ICO contributors.
It should have been planned better.

I am not sure what you meant with this. Could you explain it, please?