Like what? Every partnership or "tie" that I've ever heard of ends up being a rumor bordering on outright falsehood - like Microsoft (x2). 2 out of 3 ICOs they had announced prior to the ban ended up being delayed by 6 months or more, quite likely due to platform immaturity.

> good development

For an alpha / early stage crypto project, maybe. However they lack all the features that NEO actually brags about and the codebase is an untestable C# mess where core modules are more or less opaque to everyone but the main developer. It's a security nightmare waiting to happen, and a usability nightmare in the moment : building & publishing the simplest dapp on the platform is basically a non starter right now.

> plenty of evidence of delivering on their roadmap

Again, like what? The platform doesn't actually do anything yet. It basically consists of a few centralized servers and a centrally mined (and centrally owned) token. They're nowhere close to even delivering on dBFT itself, let alone high-concept stuff like mapping physical goods to a "digital identity".

> That's already better than most crypto-currencies.

Not if you compare it to other "currencies" in anything close to the same price range. Its valuation is far and away driven by clever marketing and uninformed speculation.