- 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
- 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 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
The large corporation highly dominates AI market.
Access to large amounts of data is crucial for development AI.
No prove of such AI conception in any other sources.
It is easy to create MVP, but almost impossible to develop industrial implication.
Team does not have blockchain and AI background.
Not clear role of tokens.
Blockchain does not create additional value.
The project is substantially overvalued.
A high competition on IoT market.
Integration with an exsisting IoT is the most important.
The most part of the current team has joined in Dec 2017 - Jan 2018.
There are 94 employees in Helium Inc. and Helium System Inc. The connection between companies is unclear.
Gateways will slow down the network deployment.
No financial information has been announced.
• Strong competition from other cloud computing blockchain projects
• Not significant edge on competitors
• Amino will release the product after competitors
• Testnet is about to be launched only in Q1 2020
• No prototype available yet
• The team appears to be too academic and suffers from the lack of experienced business leaders
• Three-layer node architecture may turn too complicated and ineffective
• Financial information is not available
- High competition in the field of scalable blockchains. Solana is relatively late in the game with quite a few projects launching their mainnets in the next few months
- High competition in the field of scalable blockchains. Solana is relatively late in the game with quite a few projects launching their mainnets in the next few months
- Roadmap to scaling and adoption is not yet clear
- No major partnership announcements yet
- Lack of business substance (e.g. potential use cases) and a clear list of features in the current whitepaper.
- Currently, the token details have not yet been publicly released.
- Tokens will be distributed in Q1 2019, which means investors’ funds will be locked for quite a while.
• Tough competition and lots of projects combining cloud computing and blockchain
• Weak hype around the project that may be a signal of poor marketing activity - the risk of future obstacles in promotion
• No prototype available
• Lack of legal and marketing specialists
• Users do not have much motivation to hold tokens for a long-term period
• High total token pool valuation
• Tight focus on the local Japanese market
• Strategy includes a production of IoT hardware that sound as a weak point in the strategy
• Unclear and not detailed roadmap
• The project is in its early stage - demo
• Lack of legal and IoT specialists
• Some of the token functions do not require the blockchain technology implemented
• Overvalued token pool capitalization – 50M USD
- High competition in the field of scalable blockchains. MANX is relatively late in the game with quite a few projects launching their mainnets in the next few months
- After the growth of the throughput of the largest cryptocurrencies (sharding, plasma and other technologies) the attention to the later-introduced scalable blockchains may fall.
- Currently, the quantum computers are far from adoption so the core product of MANX might not be demanded by the market.
- Currently, the project is on a concept stage. The Testnet is only expected in March 2019.
- The public chain launch is only expected in May 2021.
- The experience of some of the team members cannot be validated.
- The team is scattered around USA, Canada, and China.
- The token value added is unclear.
- Vesting policy has not been revealed yet.
- The company valuation at $100M seems too high.
- The use of proceeds is not given.
Tough competition among other cloud computing projects
The product is still uncertain due to not clear description and lack of detail
No whitepaper and roadmap published yet
Team members resposibilities are uncertain
Lack of blockchain, legal and marketing experience in the team
Token functions are not clear now
No financial information available now
Huge uncertainty regarding a weight of mined coins
• Fierce competition from other blockchains and projects solving the similar problem
• No prototype available
• Unclear specifications of TPS
• Jura aims to develop the product too fast having nothing for now, so the roadmap is likely to be a subject of change
• The doubtful issue regarding mfun.network
• Lack of marketing and legal specialists
• Advisors are not disclosed
• Poor token functions
• Early investors are given a bonus up to 60% with 40% of tokens with no lockup
• Too high token pool capitalization both for seed and public investors, considering no prototype available
• The project is focused on Ethereum blockchain only that we consider to be risky
• Lack of strong business logic in describing the value proposition
• Whitepaper is not released
• Value proposition is questionable
• Lack of marketing, business and blockchain specialist
• The token functions are not clear now, and it is questionable whether the project needs this token
• Monetization model in unclear
• Financial metrics are not released yet
• Fierce competition from other blockchains
• The strategy has a lack of focus and tries to attract as many groups of users as possible
• Projects with stable coins are failing on the market and usually require too much trust
• No prototype available
• The team promises too high TPS rates – 8M
• Too complicated system with lots of modules to be developed
• Too fast roadmap for such a development process
• The team does not manage the ICO process by itself and engage Token Market
• Unclear monetization model
• Unknown terms for early investors
• Too high token pool capitalization considering no prototype available
• 15% of funds raised are dedicated to covering ICO campaign, that is too much
Recently, there were many decentralized cloud-computing ICOs launched so the market competition for Raven might be tough.
Technical details of Raven are unavailable and the competitive advantage is unclear.
The product is at the proof-of-concept stage.
The Mainnet Launch is only expected in September'19 and it is subject to change.
The team is scattered between Hong Kong and India.
2 out of 5 claimed team members do not mention Raven as a workplace on LinkedIn.
The team does not explain how the money raised will be spent.
The token issue scheme planned for the 5 months after TGE may devaluate the token price significantly.
Competition in the sphere of scalable dApp-protocols is more severe than in others, so it has to be taken into consideration. The existing blockchains, though not as scalable as Alza might become, still have first-mover advantage and might be better-off if they introduce scalability features, such as Lightning network, Sharding, Plasma, State Channels.
Competition in the sphere of scalable dApp-protocols is more severe than in others, so it has to be taken into consideration. Alza aims to deliver its testnet only by the end of 2018. By this time, the already-existing blockchains may already run its Mainnets and add scalability features, such as Plasma, Sharding, Lightning, etc. The registered entity of Alza is unclear.
All of the team members are still employed at their permanent workplaces thus have to combine Alza development and permanent employment. There are no blockchain specialists within the core team. Chris Liu ACM/ICPC contest winner - does not mention Alza as a workplace on his LinkedIn page.
There is no information on the expected size of the fee
Alza will only sell 25% of the tokens for public. It is unclear how the 40% tokens for "Block producing rewards" will be used.
Somewhat related competitors, such as Etherscan and Blockseer have large audience and may implement the tools of TxHash.
Testnet is expected only in Q2 2019.
Now There are just 3 people working in the team. The whole team size is unclear. Team members are not strong, "all star" experts in software development or cryptography. There are no specialists with deep expertise in blockchain/distributed systems/cryptography.
In our opinion, the event tracking protocol valuation of $37.5M looks overvalued. It is unclear what kind of a vesting scheme will be used for team bonus. The token release timeframe is unclear.
The The competing projects - SONM, Golem, and iExec have been on the market for a while now and had "first-mover" advantage.
The GitHub page of the project has only one repository which is empty. GitHub was only created in late April. The domain was only bought at the end of April, the twitter was created around the same time. MVP is not available.
The CEO does not have a strong track record in cloud computing, AI, or blockchain. The CTO did not work at AWS, as claimed on the company's website. The experience of 2 out of 6 software developers prior to joining DeepCloud cannot be validated. The Blockchain developer is not employed at DeepCloud on full-time and additionally works on a freelance platform (Toptal) and at XSN-Core. The team is scattered across the world and different time zones. The team members are located in Singapore, San Francisco, Egypt, Ukraine, Netherlands, Florida, and Mexico. The team does not have full-time blockchain experts. There are no strong blockchain advisors and partners. The Core team members do not have strong entrepreneurial experience prior to joining DeepCloud AI.
Unit economics is poorly described.
There is no information about the team and advisors tokens lockup schemes. The competing projects - SONM, Golem, and iExec have been on the market for a while now and had "first-mover" advantage. The team aims to open two offices: one in Singapore and one in San Francisco. The reasoning for this strategy is unclear. There is no information about lockup schemes for early investors' bonus tokens.
Tough competition with similar blockchain projects Lack of significant competitive edge Lack of detailed competition analysis
Developments cannot be traced via Github Demo version demonstrates poor range of functions
Team poor experience in development before entering RateX Lack legal and relevant blockchain specialists
Possible obstacles of accepting tokens by large merchants
Overestimated Hardcap and Softcap – 25M and 20M USD 60% of tokens were purchased on private sale with 20% bonus that increases the risk of mass sell-off when entering exchanges
NNS developrs the same features for NEO Exchange. Ethereum ENS - a somewhat similar project - was launched a year ago and did not become widely popular since then.
The process of integration of existing chains into Blockchain Communication Protocol may be complex and lengthy. Currently, the Beta version is not available. The product has been in development only for 3 months, according to GitHub. The comparable technology Ethereum ENS was launched a year ago but did not gain significant customer base and was barely integrated into cryptoexchanges.
There are no marketing specialists in the team. The team is not concentrated in one place and is spread around Europe and the USA.
The exact fee size for Blockchain Name Service has not yet been disclosed and is subject to change.
The company valuation after reaching ICO Hardcap will be around 39M EUR (45M USD). This figure seems high if compared with NNS, which aimed to raise 3M USD. The given funds allocation is not detailed and gives only high-level distribution.
However, b0x is not the very first project in this field: Lendroid, dharma, and dydx. The last one has a stronger core team of developers, experienced working in financial tech infrastructure companies, and already attracted investment from Andreessen Horrowitz, Polychain Capital, and several other top tier funds. Lendroid already has a mechanism for margin calls. The high frequency of exchange hacks might be a risk for the integration of more sophisticated trading activity tools.
The roadmap is very high-level and only provides the development stages up until the end of 2018.
The core team has never had experience in ruling any business. All these factors diminish the project success, not only in the TGE campaign, but also in the future platform launch. The company is not supported by well-known advisors and community There is only two software engineers in the project, all other people have experience in different fields. There are no marketing specialists in the team.
According to the model, the lender will pay 10% fee. But at the same time the team states that the protocol will enable to avoid some intermediaries and banks for lender. The team does not state who will perform the function of Oracle
The project valuation is above the median of similar projects. For instance, Lendroid aims to raise only 5000 ETH, which is around 4M USD as of 7th of May 2018. The given allocation of funds is not quite detailed and does not give much information.
Even though Power does not have direct competitors, there are several projects that have already created and launched somewhat similar products. They are NEM, HyperLedger, Exonum, EOS, Cosmos Network. EOS has one of the largest caps in the market and is supported by a large community, Cosmos.Network has a good technical background, the rest also have larger communities and have already released products to the audience.
The usage of Rust programming language for smart contracts instead of Solidity may lower the expansion rate of the system The process of products integration into the blockchain system of Power does not seem clear and might be complicated in reality. The team aims to develop various elements of the product which may take signifcant amounts of time. However, the team does not give clear timeframes for the development of elements. There is no information about the tehcnial audit of the platform and the bandwith of the chain The patents has not yet been claimed.
the experience of the team members does not seem enough for the project development, considering the amount of work needed to be done. The LinkedIn profiles of some of the team members are not available to check. There is no information about the previous experience of the CTO of Power.
It is hard to measure the commercial viability of the platform due to the wide variety of commission models possible to implement The economics of the token is not given. It is unclear how the tokens will be used in the system.
The token distribution is not given so the company valuation is unclear. The hardcap is not given. The provided expenses distribution is sketchy and does not give a clear understanding of the funds allocation. The price of the token is not given.
Strategical focus on Korean market may appear to be not rational Tough competition from established dApps platforms and next-gen ones
Higher blockchain speed does not have detailed numerical characteristics No prototype available yet
Poor team experience in blockchain projects Lack of marketing legal specialists
Edenchain tokens will be available in the 1Q of 2019 only
Overestimated hardcap of 24M USD Overestimated token pool capitalization of 60M USD Team, advisors and partners share of token pool is 43% increasing the risk of token price dramatic impact
Wireline has direct competitors in the market of application infrastructure services with working products, such as Readz, woopie, and Zmags. There are a couple of blockchain projects also aiming to build decentralized micro-services infrastructure - DADI and Golem which already raised funds and have their tokens traded on exchanges.
Admins of the telegram chat are not active. There are messages on Bitcointalk thread saying that the project is dead, the activity stopped in January 2018. It is not clear if the project can attract a large enough sub-sector of the global open-source developer community to make the project a success. As of March 15, the companies website says that "Wireline is in developer preview". Any further information about the product development is not clear.
According to some of the team members Linkedin profiles, they are not employed at Wireline.io
Post-money valuation will be around 300M USD which is a tremendously high number and is way above the comparable companies The amount of tokens held by the foundation is high and may cause a massive sell off by the team, which will cause fast devaluation of tokens The description of anticipated expenditures is quite broad and not specified.