At the current moment beyond the “crypto-hype” people looking with doubt to such global blockchain projects, the number of people who looking forward for large platforms sharply decreased. Also, main law and technological problems aren’t solved – Visa and MasterCard are still better and all countries have their specific view on blockchain-technology. Another risk – the absence of competitive advantages. Volatility on the crypto-market.
The main risk is presence of some technological imperfections, product is global and it is crucial to be available to service all your clients qualitatively. Also, we can’t determine their product, descriptions are too abstract, they want to build something global but it’s unclear what is their exact product.
Team isn’t very big and we can’t find any outstanding experience. If their product would be successful they will meet need to hire more people.
Their business model relates to the number of users (community) and token popularity which makes it sensitive to the market and product risks
They aren’t going to take fees from their users which isn’t okay for future cash inflows. Lack of description of their token further functions, which hinder to valuate this token.
- Two regulators' red flags combined in BitTorrent - crypto assets and torrent protocol helping to avoid official streams of official content purchases.
- Risk of the weak TRON's suitability for BitTorrent's file-sharing capacity (according to insiders' gossips)
- Previous attempts to introduce monetization were failed
- The upgrade is likely to be implemented in the client only, not protocol
- Lack of technical details in the Whitepaper
- Team reorganization since the acquisition and experience the mass outflow of leaders
- Possible TRON's inefficiency for BitTorrent's network
- Recently BitTorrent was taken over by TRON for 140M USD - so much cash received leaves the tokensale with no rational ground. It looks like that TRON aims to receive back some funds and make the deal more profitable.
- High token pool valuation
- The project enters a practically monopolized market.
- ICANN is the only way to create a top-level domain right now. The entire market belongs to this organization.
- For wide distribution, the project needs implementation in large corporations and obtaining legal status in various jurisdictions.
- The team consists only of developers, no business representatives.
- The central organization does not exist.
- The legal component of the project is not clear.
- It is not clear whether large corporations and organizations will agree to move to the auction system.
- It is difficult to predict how such a technology will be taken by governments and ICANN, created by the US government.
- Legal issues are not covered. The project could face pressure or prohibition from centralized bodies such as ICANN and governments of different countries.
- $ 136 million of initial capitalization, which may lead to a strong fall in prices at the initial stage, in case of early listing.
- Experimental distribution system. It may turn out to be a strong point of the project or a trap for the project because it is very difficult to imagine how the network will be managed.
- The difficult idea for the market
- Politics risk due to the founder's manifesto
- Idealistic motives behind the project's structure and goals
- The founder background and vision may push away some partnerships and prevent the adoption
- The role of tokens is still finalized
- The project is not going to accept additional funds
None of current DEXs have solved the main technical problem – low speed and liquidity.
The other problem is advantages of larges exchanges, which have huge number of users and it is easier for them to create a decentralized network.
In addition, there is a big law risk – SEC has not approved current DEXs, nut USA is the biggest market for such platforms. The situation is that the first good project is going to win the competition and capture the market.
Now Ferrum is developing two main products – DEX and wallet. Both of the products have many other already existing analogues.
There are 8 people and 5 advisors. Half of a team are from investment funds and the other half has some technical background. There is one important moment – most of the founders haven’t changed their main workplace in LinkedIn.
Ferrum Network has strategic partners - TLG Ventures, KOSMOS, Token Research Group. Some of their team members represent these funds.
Ferrum’s business and token’s cost fully depend on the number of users. During the communication with the team, they have mentioned that their main market is USA, but it is still big legal risk with American jurisdiction. In addition, business is built on cryptocurrency market and if it is going to fail this project will be unclaimed.
- Tough competition from other blockchain platforms
- No public release is available
- Team previous experience spans many not widely known Romanian companies
- Lack of outstanding features for tokens
- High valuation for main sale and private investors with the high potential of cost reduction in the budget
- The designed network see significant obstacles from the telecom industry, not prepared for an effective maintenance of such industries
- Tough competition in the blockchain industry
- No prototype available
- Token functions are not described in details
- No financial information available yet
- "Network effect" entry barrier
- The new OS may add more complexity to the blockchain infrastructure
- Uncertain need globally in the solution
- Lack of experienced staff from well-known companies
- Uncertain activity of users in vouching
- No financial information available
- Tough competition on the market of scalable blockchains
- Edge on competitors is not clear due to the lack of technology described
- No prototype
- No roadmap
- Lack of details in the technology description
- Unexperienced team with doubtful achievements
- No exceptional token functions (the traditional model is used)
- Unclear use-of-proceeds plan with no significant adjustments
- High token pool capitalization for the project with no prototype
- The market has not seen successful tokenization projects yet, raising the risk of remaining the idea only "theoretical"
- No prototype available
- The team may be involved in other activity in their companies
- No distinguished and outstanding background in the team
- High peaq token pool valuation - 62M USD
- Fierce competition from other scalable blockchains
- The unclear need for high TPS from the demand side
- No successful projects presented even the half of the offering TPS
- No prototype
- No whitepaper
- Too long roadmap
- The team does not have LinkedIn pages
- The team is from Cheetah Mobile - distinguished company but with no relevance to blockchain technologies
- No details regarding the model and tokens
- Not distinguished funds on board
- No financial info available
- No one on the market has solved the problems that ARPA aims to solve
- Fierce competition from the similar projects
- ARPA promises to solve significantly difficult problems of multi-computations and security
- No prototype
- No whitepaper
- Mainnet release may be considered as late - Q2 2019
- The core technology is only to be released in Q1 2020
- Lack of legal and marketing specialists
- Lack of strong managers with the proven track record in successful projects
- Token functions are not announced yet
- Financial info is not announced yet
- The offer is likely to give no significant edge on competitors
- No prototype available
- Team members achievement and profiles are hardly available for proofing
- Legal risks regarding security functions of the token
- No information regarding valuation
- Seed bonuses have no lock-up period that increases the risk of the mass sell-off
- Uncertain purpose of "Investors Protection Fund"
- The structure of the coming token sale is unknown
- TODA.Network has a very strong competitor in its field - Bloxroute.
- The intended throughput of the protocol is unclear. - It is unclear how both decentralization and security will be achieved, along with high scalability. - The team claims that the project was founded in 2015. However, the first traces that were discovered date back to November 2016. - The last GitHub commit was made more than a year ago. - The roadmap is not available now. - The company is registered at the same address as PrivacyShell - the previous company of the founders.
- The roles in the project of "Honorary Founding Members" and "Executive Team" are unclear. - The team is scattered around San Francisco Bay Area and Ontario, Canada. - Several founding members do not mention Toda.Network as a workplace on Linkedin.
- The information about the fees calculation algorithm is unclear.
- Token metrics are to be announced.
The blockchain market is extremely competitive nowadays.
CEO and CTO has mainly scientific background, and have not built any company before. No publically available proof of team’s experience.
There is no difference with current market leaders.
Top-tier funds are not involved in project. Too high share of tokens for foundation.
Fierce competition on blockchain market. Legal issues with card payment with crypto assets.
No focus of the product – all in one. No clear roadmap of product development.
Founder and co-founder of Newton Protocol already took part in ICO of Elastos just half year ago. Founders team does not have deep expertise in blockchain development.
The model implies extremely strong network effect, as a result, first mover grab the most of market. The model is typical for infrastructure projects.
No information has been announced. Project has at least 13 angel investors what is strange.