- Tough competition with other blockchain networks focused on scaling
- Small allocations for public sale investors
- Digitilized compliance market seems to be narrow in the foreseeable future, and we expect professional services (not tokenized) to remain quite firm.
- Long and unclear roadmap
- Lack of technical details
- The team is strong in management/finance BUT we found no strong tech specialist involved.
- The model just gathers professionals in the network and motivate them to provide their compliance services for tokens. The models where the work is quite "manual" have not proved to be efficient especially when
- The token price is only tied to the growth of users and validators, that depends on the growth of the quite narrow market
- Too large cap for IEO
- The idea is technically hard and may face up to obstacles in implementation for global Internet
- non-public development and there is no way to track the progress
- too much funds attracted (also, gossips indicate even more funds contributed, up to 130 M USD)
- highly strong competition with other blockchain focused on TPS issue
- high TPS are supported by centralization
- the website is written on WIX - that's unusual for a technology company with so many experienced tech specialists employed
- too large team that may result in significant cashburn
- the model does not outstand from other blockchain protocol governance models developing in recent years
- too much funds attracting
- strong downward pressure to price due to high discounts and allocations to early investors
- Strong competitors
- Untransparent activity, so that it is hard to track the progress of the development
- Clients may pay for storage with ETH, so the native token may be useless
- Too much funds raising, according to gossips
- Unpublic way of raising funds
- Competition with Ripple
- Highly centralized blockchain product
- The team of executives with no details on developers (or colsultants)
- Fiat backed is reserved on the J.P. Morgan accounts
- The project does not align with the trend in the stablecoin field
- Stong competitors with more advanced technologies
- Not community-friendly focus on preventing anonymity and working closely with government authorities
- strong focus on monetary research, but not the development
- algorithms are focused on fiat collateral management - the idea widely hated in the crypto community as it is destined to be tied to the human factor
- no additional rounds are expected
- too much funds attracted for such a weak technology stack. The budget seems to be skewed to salaries, that may be considered as a cash-burn machine.
- Tough competition and strong project with stable coin already on the market
- smart contracts are likely to be based on the fixed parameters supporting the Quantity theory of Money - this concept is questionable in its strict form, so we hope the parameters to be flexible
- The system is tied to Ethereum
- The system has a right to manage users' accounts, withdraw and add tokens - that may distract some users
- The volatility and uncertainty is nor removed - it is just replaced from the Prices to Volumed, and Inflation risk turns just Shrinknflation risk
- Financial information is not available
- High competition between stable coins
- Market glut of crypto projects, product doesn’t meet real business’ demand which is going to be the main driver in the industry
- Bad timing for further products (Decentralized Phase & Independent phase): Gartner Hype Cycle
- Sharp decrease of collateral value – no dividends for share token holders
- Bad valuation for Share token – lack of demand
- The absence of exact product view – potential pivot (usual for startups)
- Bloated staff (might be too big team for startup, but not critical)
- The absence of experienced portfolio managers, which is important for their collateral part of business
- Potential losing of money from bad investment in collateral
- The model tries to be less dependent on technology, than competitors' ones - that is the problem many new projects try to overcome - as a good stablecoin must avoid human intervention
- High valuation, according to gossips (over 50M USD)
- The product may become niche on market with the scalability obstacles
- Free centralized services may be more user-friendly for users
- unclear business plan
- the service may lose the competition with free centralized services, being non-free and slower
- the roadmap is unavailable
- it is unclear who will develop the project, and who will just support
- unclear adoptability on platforms with free authentication.
- unclear token specification
- no financial metrics available
- it is unclear, whether Binance participate in equity or not
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.
- 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 not 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.
- 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