AERGO

With the ability to deploy on either public or private blockchain networks, AERGO gives businesses the flexibility in developing and deploying blockchain applications.

About AERGO

AERGO is a “4th generation” enterprise ecosystem which is comprised of its own blockchain, a hub for decentralized applications, and a marketplace. The platform is stated to utilize a fast and efficient blockchain protocol, a powerful SQL smart contract engine, IT integration APIs, and easy to use developer tools.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

How easy is it to read and understand the documentation, comprehend the project's goals and trajectory.

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

What stages are to be achieved, how are they to be carried out and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the token model and how well does it fit into the company's overall business model.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper begins with a brief disclaimer which spans approximately 2 pages. The whitepaper claims that the technical whitepaper is available through the company website. However, at the time of this review (Aug 2018), this document was not available.
The first section of the whitepaper primarily gives a generic overview and the context of blockchain technology with respect to technological evolution and how the organization believes that “this new world is the next phase of the internet: the human-centered decentralized internet”.

A significant portion of the whitepaper does not specifically discuss the project. Instead, a broad overview of blockchain technology and dApps are included in the document.

Business related aspects of the platform, beyond details of the token sale, are quite limited. Specific technical details of the technical infrastructure of the platform is also lacking considering the nature of the project.

Team information is available in the appendix and the company website. The project GitHub page is not available. Legal content is minimal.

Readability: The readability of the documument would be improved if it were more concise, which can be accomplished with the omission of the beginning section of the whitepaper which primarily gives a broad overview of blockchain technology.

The whitepaper uses language that seems to hype up the product without providing specific details. For example, it is stated that the company believes that “it will also be capable of engaging and utilizing a parallel throughput networking fabric, as well as supporting a multi-thread architecture for multicore and ultra-fast cached memory computer environments”.

Transparency: The whitepaper contains language that seem to generate hype towards the product instead of adequately informing the reader. Potential competitors are not compared/evaluated.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Business development plans are lacking. The marketing plans or the strategy for widespread adoption of the platform are not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper. The token economics are discussed broadly.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The platform will be able to support public, private, and a hybrid architecture configuration. With regards to transaction speed/efficiency, there is a lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper. Instead, the organization claims that “they have developed “a new parallel processing capability of smart contracts seeks to allow AERGO Chain to handle millions of transactions per second”. Additionally, It is stated that “AERGO intends to leverage and build upon Blocko’s existing COINSTACK platform, which is a fully supported enterprise product that has been adopted by many of its existing clients”. Overall, considering the nature and scope of the project, there seems to be a lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper. A technical whitepaper was not available on the company website was not available at the time of review.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper contains a brief disclaimer towards the beginning of the whitepaper which spans approximately two pages.

 

Documentation Market

Product

1.8
Product
Differentiation

What are the product's unique features / attributes / advantages? How is it different from other, similar products or projects? What makes it stand out or gives it an edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

Readiness of the full platform, including blockchain/smart-contract/token infrastructure; based on what's publicly available (not just claims).

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
Concreteness of Development Plans

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Blockchain Innovation

What is the level of innovation and development particularly with regard to blockchain technology and its utilization? Do the project's blockchain-related developments have value beyond the company's particular platform or network?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, innovative use of smart contract functionality or blockchain technology as part of the platform.

Product

Differentiation: AERGO aims to become the dominant enterprise blockchain platform. The whitepaper claims that AERGO is the “next generation enterprise blockchain protocol and platform” and will connect with legacy IT software with the AERGO blockchain. The following are the main components of the AERGO ecosystem: the AERGO chain, the AERGO hub, and the AERGO marketplace. AERGO chain will utilize AERGOSQL which is stated to allow users to “code the smart contract as easy as possible”. AERGO hub allows dApps to interact with the blockchain and will consist of public and private repositories. However, other enterprise blockchain competitors are not thoroughly evaluated and the proposed features of the platform does not seem like it will effectively differentiate the platform from potential competitors.

Readiness: It is not evident that substantial progress has been made with the platform from a technical perspective. This is evident with one of the responses in the FAQ section of the project website from a question regarding the current stage of development: “We have established AERGO for the open source community and supporting ecosystem and includes the design of a comprehensive operating strategy and governance structure for AERGO Public Network, AERGO Hub and AERGO Marketplace”.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A brief overview of the development roadmap is presented as follows:

Q2 2018
AERGO SQL (in the market as COINSTACK SP2)
Q3 2018
AERGO Chain Alpha
Q4 2018
AERGO Chain Test Network
Q1 2019
AERGO Public Network (Main net)
Q2 2019
AERGO Hub & Marketplace

There is a lack of business related milestones. The milestones presented are quite vague.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization’s description of their current stage of development suggests that developments with regards to the platform are primarily conceptual.

Feasiblity: There have been no updated from the organization with regards to the alpha version of the product, which seems to indicate that the the proceeding technical developments with respect to the AERGO seem to be quite ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: Although there is a lack of technical detail provided in the whitepaper, the ambition of the project is to develop an entirely new blockchain infrastructure that will have fast transaction speeds and effectively serve enterprise users.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

2.0
Market
Target User Base

How big is the project's target user base, how large is its potential market?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly unlikely.
Direct Competition

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Blockchain Disruption

How strong is the potential for disruption of the market sector due to the introduction of blockchain technology, as it is utilized by the solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base is not effectively discussed in the whitepaper. It is inferred that the platform aims to become a notable competitor with respect to enterprise blockchains. As a result, enterprise users are the target demographic.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration will be difficult, especially considering the number of blockchain projects that have similar goes to AERGO and the lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper as well as the lack of technical progress that has been achieved thus far.

Direct Competition: The platform aims to become the “de facto enterprise blockchain”. There are numerous blockchain projects that have the same ambitious, many of which are much further along in development when compared to AERGO. The whitepaper does not include content which assesses the project against potential competitors.

Potential competitors include:
– Ethereum
– Hyperledger
– R3 Corda
– Ripple
– Quorum
– IBM Bluemix Blockchain
– Open Chain
– Ciphrex
– Colu
– Credits

Solution Advantage: Considerable advantages are not adequately discussed in the whitepaper. From a feature standpoint, the platform aims to provide an easy means for legacy IT software to connect to the AERGO blockchain while providing a protocol that is stated to support millions of transactions per second.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential level of disruption when considering the solution description seems fairly weak due to the lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper. More specifically, the details regarding the blockchain infrastructure of the platform is discussed inadequately and as a result, the projected level of disruption is uncertain.

Long-Term Vision: It is stated that the team recognizes that “the AERGO Project has very ambitious long-term goals”. When considering the milestones outlined in the whitepaper, the long-term vision of the development of the platform is not clear. The organization aims to develop a enterprise blockchain platform but without a thorough comparison with potential competitors, the plans of how the organization aims to compete with similar projects is difficult to assess.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

When was the company founded, how mature is it? Has it raised significant funds? Where relevant, this should address the parent company. For reviewers (not for tooltip): Check company LinkedIn and Crunchbase profiles. Impression summary should list basic information such as founding date, location/s, previous fundraising rounds (via crunchbase), maybe number of employees (via linkedin).

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Team Assembly and Commitment

What is the structure of the team (core members, advisers, contributors)? Are all necessary positions filled or is the company still looking for key team participants? Are the team members fully committed to the project (or involved with other projects simultaneously)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

Are LinkedIn (or Github, or other professional) profile links provided, and do they show involvement in the project and relevant previous experience? For reviewers (not for tooltip): If the team is quite large, C-level and certain key team members (such as lead tech/blockchain developers) should be looked at, while other than that, a sample is fine (but this should be mentioned or reflected in the language ["It appears as though..."]).

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

How relevant are the team members' backgrounds and experience to the project and its requirements? Do they come from related industries and have in-depth knowledge of their respective fields?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Strategic Partnerships

What kind of launch partners and early adopters does the project have?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: It is stated in the whitepaper that “AERGO’s core technology is based on COINSTACK from BLOCKO Inc”. According the the company LinkedIn page, the company is based in Hong Kong, Wanchai and was founded in 2018.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Based on the FAQ response provided on the project website, there are 10 full-time team members working on the project. The team structure is outlined as follows:

AERGO BOARD
Phil Zamani
Hun Young Park
Roderik van der Graaf

COMMITTEE HEADS
Won Kim
Jane Lee
Alison Shim

ADVISORS
Eddie Alleyn
Riad Hartani
Joon-Hong Jake Kim
Djamel Souici
Pierre F. Suhrcke
Vincent Zhou
Sinhae Lee
Julian Lenz

TECH TEAM
Kyung Tae Lee
Sung Jae Woo
Yun Woo Park
Pierre-Alain Ouvrard
Bernardino Ramos

BUSINESS TEAM
Mason Park
Han Kim
Camron Miraftab
Seona Kim

Nearly all team members are concurrently working at BLOCKO. The overall level of commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Bio descriptions are not provided for team members on the company website but can be found in the whitepaper. Information regarding past work experience and education can be found for all key team members (board, comimittee heads, tech team). GitHub links are not provided for those with technical positions.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most of the team is concurrently working at BLOCKO, a blockchain infrastructure provider that was founded in 2014 and as developed COINSTACK. AERGO is a much more ambitious project in comparison, and thus, prior experience seems correlated to project requirements.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There does not seem to be major concerns with respect to team skill balance seeing as the team has experience developing a functional blockchain-related project and possesses a reasonable number of individuals for business and technical development.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships or launch partners are not evident.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.5
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized, or centralized components fully justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: AERGO tokens are used to act as a medium of exchange within the AERGO ecosystem. The use cases for the token are outlined as follows: – running the smart contract (AERGOSQL); – DPOS consensus algorithm – payment method for Blocko’s technical support on Coinstack 4.0; – payment method for AERGO Hub services; – payment method for services and assets on AERGO Marketplace; and – payment method for the AERGO domain

Token Economy: Total supply: 500,000,000 AERGO Tokens Token economics are not discussed thoroughly. Details of the token economy is discussed via a few bullet points of token use cases and a figure briefly outlining the flow of token circulation.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will utilize a delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS) consensus protocol and “”intends to implement a novel score based autonomous delegation algorithm to enhance reliability and quality of service””. Further details of this implementation are not provided. Furthermore, it is stated that “”AERGO Chain supports various consensus algorithms and allows its users to define and choose a consensus algorithm to best meet their business requirements””. However, the default consensus algorithm will be PoS. The document spends a considerable amount of content comparing different consensus algorithms (PoW, PoS, and dPoS) which seems unnecessary considering that it is mentioned that the platform will support multiple consensus algorithms.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A Hard cap: N/A

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 40% – R&D 30% – Ecosystem incubation 15% – Marketing 10% – Strategic alliances and business development 5% – Miscellaneous Further details are not provided.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 35% – Reserved by token issuer 30% – Proportion of Tokens for Sale 20% – AERGO community incentives and strategic partners 10% – Advisors and key backers 5% – Employees of token issuer and affiliate Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper begins with a brief disclaimer which spans approximately 2 pages. The whitepaper claims that the technical whitepaper is available through the company website. However, at the time of this review (Aug 2018), this document was not available.
The first section of the whitepaper primarily gives a generic overview and the context of blockchain technology with respect to technological evolution and how the organization believes that “this new world is the next phase of the internet: the human-centered decentralized internet”.

A significant portion of the whitepaper does not specifically discuss the project. Instead, a broad overview of blockchain technology and dApps are included in the document.

Business related aspects of the platform, beyond details of the token sale, are quite limited. Specific technical details of the technical infrastructure of the platform is also lacking considering the nature of the project.

Team information is available in the appendix and the company website. The project GitHub page is not available. Legal content is minimal.

Readability: The readability of the documument would be improved if it were more concise, which can be accomplished with the omission of the beginning section of the whitepaper which primarily gives a broad overview of blockchain technology.

The whitepaper uses language that seems to hype up the product without providing specific details. For example, it is stated that the company believes that “it will also be capable of engaging and utilizing a parallel throughput networking fabric, as well as supporting a multi-thread architecture for multicore and ultra-fast cached memory computer environments”.

Transparency: The whitepaper contains language that seem to generate hype towards the product instead of adequately informing the reader. Potential competitors are not compared/evaluated.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Business development plans are lacking. The marketing plans or the strategy for widespread adoption of the platform are not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper. The token economics are discussed broadly.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The platform will be able to support public, private, and a hybrid architecture configuration. With regards to transaction speed/efficiency, there is a lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper. Instead, the organization claims that “they have developed “a new parallel processing capability of smart contracts seeks to allow AERGO Chain to handle millions of transactions per second”. Additionally, It is stated that “AERGO intends to leverage and build upon Blocko’s existing COINSTACK platform, which is a fully supported enterprise product that has been adopted by many of its existing clients”. Overall, considering the nature and scope of the project, there seems to be a lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper. A technical whitepaper was not available on the company website was not available at the time of review.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The whitepaper contains a brief disclaimer towards the beginning of the whitepaper which spans approximately two pages.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
Readability

How easy is it to read and understand the documentation, comprehend the project's goals and trajectory.

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

3.0
N/A
3 - Basically honest, but hyped up or potentially misleading.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

What stages are to be achieved, how are they to be carried out and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the token model and how well does it fit into the company's overall business model.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.3

Product

Differentiation: AERGO aims to become the dominant enterprise blockchain platform. The whitepaper claims that AERGO is the “next generation enterprise blockchain protocol and platform” and will connect with legacy IT software with the AERGO blockchain. The following are the main components of the AERGO ecosystem: the AERGO chain, the AERGO hub, and the AERGO marketplace. AERGO chain will utilize AERGOSQL which is stated to allow users to “code the smart contract as easy as possible”. AERGO hub allows dApps to interact with the blockchain and will consist of public and private repositories. However, other enterprise blockchain competitors are not thoroughly evaluated and the proposed features of the platform does not seem like it will effectively differentiate the platform from potential competitors.

Readiness: It is not evident that substantial progress has been made with the platform from a technical perspective. This is evident with one of the responses in the FAQ section of the project website from a question regarding the current stage of development: “We have established AERGO for the open source community and supporting ecosystem and includes the design of a comprehensive operating strategy and governance structure for AERGO Public Network, AERGO Hub and AERGO Marketplace”.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A brief overview of the development roadmap is presented as follows:

Q2 2018
AERGO SQL (in the market as COINSTACK SP2)
Q3 2018
AERGO Chain Alpha
Q4 2018
AERGO Chain Test Network
Q1 2019
AERGO Public Network (Main net)
Q2 2019
AERGO Hub & Marketplace

There is a lack of business related milestones. The milestones presented are quite vague.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization’s description of their current stage of development suggests that developments with regards to the platform are primarily conceptual.

Feasiblity: There have been no updated from the organization with regards to the alpha version of the product, which seems to indicate that the the proceeding technical developments with respect to the AERGO seem to be quite ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: Although there is a lack of technical detail provided in the whitepaper, the ambition of the project is to develop an entirely new blockchain infrastructure that will have fast transaction speeds and effectively serve enterprise users.

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

What are the product's unique features / attributes / advantages? How is it different from other, similar products or projects? What makes it stand out or gives it an edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

Readiness of the full platform, including blockchain/smart-contract/token infrastructure; based on what's publicly available (not just claims).

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
Concreteness of Development Plans

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Blockchain Innovation

What is the level of innovation and development particularly with regard to blockchain technology and its utilization? Do the project's blockchain-related developments have value beyond the company's particular platform or network?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, innovative use of smart contract functionality or blockchain technology as part of the platform.
Product Score:
1.8

Market

Target User Base: The target user base is not effectively discussed in the whitepaper. It is inferred that the platform aims to become a notable competitor with respect to enterprise blockchains. As a result, enterprise users are the target demographic.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration will be difficult, especially considering the number of blockchain projects that have similar goes to AERGO and the lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper as well as the lack of technical progress that has been achieved thus far.

Direct Competition: The platform aims to become the “de facto enterprise blockchain”. There are numerous blockchain projects that have the same ambitious, many of which are much further along in development when compared to AERGO. The whitepaper does not include content which assesses the project against potential competitors.

Potential competitors include:
– Ethereum
– Hyperledger
– R3 Corda
– Ripple
– Quorum
– IBM Bluemix Blockchain
– Open Chain
– Ciphrex
– Colu
– Credits

Solution Advantage: Considerable advantages are not adequately discussed in the whitepaper. From a feature standpoint, the platform aims to provide an easy means for legacy IT software to connect to the AERGO blockchain while providing a protocol that is stated to support millions of transactions per second.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential level of disruption when considering the solution description seems fairly weak due to the lack of specific technical content provided in the whitepaper. More specifically, the details regarding the blockchain infrastructure of the platform is discussed inadequately and as a result, the projected level of disruption is uncertain.

Long-Term Vision: It is stated that the team recognizes that “the AERGO Project has very ambitious long-term goals”. When considering the milestones outlined in the whitepaper, the long-term vision of the development of the platform is not clear. The organization aims to develop a enterprise blockchain platform but without a thorough comparison with potential competitors, the plans of how the organization aims to compete with similar projects is difficult to assess.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

How big is the project's target user base, how large is its potential market?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly unlikely.
Direct Competition

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Blockchain Disruption

How strong is the potential for disruption of the market sector due to the introduction of blockchain technology, as it is utilized by the solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.
Market Score:
2.0

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: It is stated in the whitepaper that “AERGO’s core technology is based on COINSTACK from BLOCKO Inc”. According the the company LinkedIn page, the company is based in Hong Kong, Wanchai and was founded in 2018.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Based on the FAQ response provided on the project website, there are 10 full-time team members working on the project. The team structure is outlined as follows:

AERGO BOARD
Phil Zamani
Hun Young Park
Roderik van der Graaf

COMMITTEE HEADS
Won Kim
Jane Lee
Alison Shim

ADVISORS
Eddie Alleyn
Riad Hartani
Joon-Hong Jake Kim
Djamel Souici
Pierre F. Suhrcke
Vincent Zhou
Sinhae Lee
Julian Lenz

TECH TEAM
Kyung Tae Lee
Sung Jae Woo
Yun Woo Park
Pierre-Alain Ouvrard
Bernardino Ramos

BUSINESS TEAM
Mason Park
Han Kim
Camron Miraftab
Seona Kim

Nearly all team members are concurrently working at BLOCKO. The overall level of commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Bio descriptions are not provided for team members on the company website but can be found in the whitepaper. Information regarding past work experience and education can be found for all key team members (board, comimittee heads, tech team). GitHub links are not provided for those with technical positions.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most of the team is concurrently working at BLOCKO, a blockchain infrastructure provider that was founded in 2014 and as developed COINSTACK. AERGO is a much more ambitious project in comparison, and thus, prior experience seems correlated to project requirements.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There does not seem to be major concerns with respect to team skill balance seeing as the team has experience developing a functional blockchain-related project and possesses a reasonable number of individuals for business and technical development.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnerships or launch partners are not evident.

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

When was the company founded, how mature is it? Has it raised significant funds? Where relevant, this should address the parent company. For reviewers (not for tooltip): Check company LinkedIn and Crunchbase profiles. Impression summary should list basic information such as founding date, location/s, previous fundraising rounds (via crunchbase), maybe number of employees (via linkedin).

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Team Assembly and Commitment

What is the structure of the team (core members, advisers, contributors)? Are all necessary positions filled or is the company still looking for key team participants? Are the team members fully committed to the project (or involved with other projects simultaneously)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

Are LinkedIn (or Github, or other professional) profile links provided, and do they show involvement in the project and relevant previous experience? For reviewers (not for tooltip): If the team is quite large, C-level and certain key team members (such as lead tech/blockchain developers) should be looked at, while other than that, a sample is fine (but this should be mentioned or reflected in the language ["It appears as though..."]).

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

How relevant are the team members' backgrounds and experience to the project and its requirements? Do they come from related industries and have in-depth knowledge of their respective fields?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Strategic Partnerships

What kind of launch partners and early adopters does the project have?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: AERGO tokens are used to act as a medium of exchange within the AERGO ecosystem. The use cases for the token are outlined as follows: – running the smart contract (AERGOSQL); – DPOS consensus algorithm – payment method for Blocko’s technical support on Coinstack 4.0; – payment method for AERGO Hub services; – payment method for services and assets on AERGO Marketplace; and – payment method for the AERGO domain

Token Economy: Total supply: 500,000,000 AERGO Tokens Token economics are not discussed thoroughly. Details of the token economy is discussed via a few bullet points of token use cases and a figure briefly outlining the flow of token circulation.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will utilize a delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS) consensus protocol and “”intends to implement a novel score based autonomous delegation algorithm to enhance reliability and quality of service””. Further details of this implementation are not provided. Furthermore, it is stated that “”AERGO Chain supports various consensus algorithms and allows its users to define and choose a consensus algorithm to best meet their business requirements””. However, the default consensus algorithm will be PoS. The document spends a considerable amount of content comparing different consensus algorithms (PoW, PoS, and dPoS) which seems unnecessary considering that it is mentioned that the platform will support multiple consensus algorithms.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A Hard cap: N/A

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 40% – R&D 30% – Ecosystem incubation 15% – Marketing 10% – Strategic alliances and business development 5% – Miscellaneous Further details are not provided.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 35% – Reserved by token issuer 30% – Proportion of Tokens for Sale 20% – AERGO community incentives and strategic partners 10% – Advisors and key backers 5% – Employees of token issuer and affiliate Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized, or centralized components fully justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
2.5

Use this code to share the ratings on your website