Blockvest

Blockvest is a Decentralized Blockchain Based Assets Exchange as well as a cryptocurrency index fund, which is a closed-cap, tokenized cryptocurrency portfolio that autonomously tracks top 30 crypto.

About Blockvest

Blockchain Investments aims to develop Blockvest, an ecosystem that facilitates the development of a stable coin while allowing users to have access to a utility token which represents a cryptocurrency index which is managed by the company. A portion of the funds collected from the ICO will be used to purchase the underlying index cryptocurrencies. Those that use the stablecoin for transactions pay fees toward those that stake Blockvest in a Nvestnode wallet.
The platform utilizes two tokens: Yield (YLD) and Blockvest (BLV).

– Yield (YLD) is the stablecoin that is used as a medium of exchange on the platform and has a floating supply.
– Blockvest is used as collateral and has a fixed supply which represent the “top performing cryptocurrency index” according to the whitepaper. It is stated that “ownership of Blockvest tokens grants the right to issue a value of Yields proportional to the dollar value of Blockvest placed into escrow” and can be held in Nvestnodes in order to receive quarterly earnings.

It is stated that “Blockvest is specifically designed for trading cryptocurrencies mining and staking as well as investing in early stage Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)”.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.5
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very difficult to understand.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper and a pitch deck is included on the company website. The pitch deck contains much of the content that is expected to be included in the whitepaper. In fact, when compared to the whitepaper, the pitch deck is much more comprehensive. However, the pitch deck heavily focuses on discussing background and market research as opposed to thoroughly outlining the solution. A document outlining the terms and conditions of the platform and the token generation event is also included. The whitepaper is quite short and lacks detail. The problem statement is vaguely discussed and the solution description is quite poorly written. Technical aspects of the platform are discussed broadly. Business-related content, such as market research, an assessment on potential competitors, marketing strategies, etc are lacking. Documentation primarily focuses on pricing mechanisms and market assessment. The team is presented on the company website. The link for the company GitHub page leads to the main GitHub page instead of the company page. Legal content is presented in the document which outlines terms and conditions.

Readability: The whitepaper is quite short and simple to read. The pitch deck however, takes considerable time to read. The use of figures/images is poor, and at times can be overwhelming or confusing. The readability of the pitch deck would significantly improve it it were more concise. Both documents are not organized well. The inclusion of a table of contents within the pitch deck would be beneficial.

Transparency: There is a lack of transparency with regards to various aspects of the platform. For example, the current stage of development is not clear. Potential competitors are not discussed and potential issues/limitations of the platform are not addressed. Some social media links provided on the company website do not lead to the company page.

With regards to the platform itself, it is stated that “Blockchain Investments funds are Audited by Deloitte and Stratumns Indigo Trace platform”. Furthermore, the organization claims that they will perform “daily self-certification of funds in conjunction with monthly external audits will ensure transparency and trust between BLV fund managers and shareholders”.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan is uncertain. There is a significant lack of detail presented on the company website. It is stated in the pitch deck that the “smart contract allows token owners to collect 50% of quarterly profits” and that “25% of profits is reinvested back into the fund”. Documents focus more on the token economics (pricing mechanisms, reward schemes, etc.) as opposed to the business development strategy of the organization.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical aspects of the platform such as the decentralized exchange and Nvestnodes are not discussed with the same level of detail as pricing mechanisms. These aspects of the platform are mainly presented in broad terms. For example, it is stated that “similar to NeoFS, Nvestnode will serve as one of the interoperability services under the BLVContract system, enabling smart contracts to store large files on the blockchain and set access for those files”.

Almost the entirety of the discussion on Nvestnodes is presented as follows: Nvestnodes are computers that run a Blockvest wallet and make decisions, such as voting and budget funding, as well as process transactions on the Blockvest platform for Transaction fees. Nvestnodes are required to keep 1000 BLV coins to meet the desired collateral requirement. You must maintain a dedicated IP address and be able to run it 24 hours a day without more than an hour connection loss. Nvestnodes get 50% of the block reward in every block, which is distributed to Nvestnodes one at at time. Further discussion regarding the infrastructure of the technology is essentially absent from the all documents.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The majority of the legal content can be found in the document which outlines the terms and conditions of the website, the token sale, and the platform. A link to the organization’s Form D (Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities) is provided: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1737601/000173760118000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml. AML/KYC procedures are outlined along with the organization’s privacy policy. Disclaimers and disclosures are included in the pitch deck.

 

Documentation Market

Product

1.5
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).

Product

Differentiation: The following features are outlined in the whitepaper: – Analyze and pick investment opportunities from the list of options that are available on the Blockvest Crypto Platform. – Structure the investment portfolio and allocate capital to desired assets. – Track the portfolio performance. – Drill down to get the decomposition and verify the investment results. – Submit tokens for buyback to participate in the distribution of the fund’s income. – Download reports and export necessary analytical data. Most of the documentation focuses on discussing traditional markets versus cryptocurrency markets as opposed to evaluation potential competitors in the realm of blockchain-focused projects. The development of a stable coin alongside the organization’s goal to give users access to a cryptocurrency index differentiates it from similar projects that focus solely on the former or the latter, but the level of differentiation for the project is still is still low.

Readiness: Based on publicly available information, it seems as though the platform is still primarily an idea. The organization’s GitHub page was not available and demonstrations of the product are not presented.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap in the whitepaper is presented as follows: Feb to Mar 2018 – Release of whitepaper and technical plan description April 2018 – Private sale May 2018 – Expression of interest: 34% bonus July to August 2018 – Pre-ICO token sale: 25% bonus August until Sold Out – Global ICO October 2018 – Launch of Blockvest Platform Wallet and Nvestnode: Debut of Blockvest AI Intelligent portfolio management system November 2018 – Debut of decentralized exchange: full launch of Blockvest Decentralized Exchange with support for top 100 cryptocurrencies Most milestons pertain to the token sale. There is a lack of milestones that align to business and technology development plans.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, it seems as though the organization has merely conceptualized the platform instead of achieving meaningful developments both from a business and technical perspective.

Feasiblity: The goal of developing an exchange by November 2018 is quite ambitious considering that the organization has yet to reveal any notable technical achievements that the company has achieved thus far (July 2018).

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

Product Company and Team

Market

1.7
Market
Target User Base

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Tiny or indeterminate.
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 for the platform are primarily investors that would like to gain access to cryptocurrency markets.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration will be challenging considering the number of competitors in this sector and the regulatory obstacles that the organization faces as it develops “utility” tokens that allow users who stake BLV tokens to receive returns.

Direct Competition: There are a number of projects that aim to give investors access to cryptocurrency markets. Potential competitors include:

– CRYPTO20
– Index Coin
– ZNAQ
– Trident Coin
– IronChain Capital: MiX10
– PentaFund
– Altindex

Other stable coin projects include:

– Basecoin
– Bitshares
– BitCNY
– DAI
– DigixDAO
– Havven
– TrueUSD
– Tether
– USDX

Solution Advantage: The organization uses a proprietary trading strategy, thus the solution advantage is difficult to assess. Descriptions of the trading strategy are vague and the level of performance that the strategy can achieve is not certain. It is stated that “Blockchain Investments uses a proprietary trading strategy for trading all asset classes. The strategy uses variations of mean reverse, pattern recognition and Supply and Demand. The strategy employs risk modules to be able to keep drawdowns to a range of 6% to 15%. Blockchain Investments targets returns between 12% to 25% per annum with a Sharpe ratio of above .5”.

Blockchain Disruption: The platform primarily uses blockchain technology for the creation of tokens for the purposes of funding the project. There are vague descriptions of using Nvestnodes in order to operate wallets, make decisions (voting and budget funding), and process transactions. As a result, the level of disruption brought forth by the implementation of blockchain technology (as described by the solution) seems fairly low.

Long-Term Vision: A significant amount of content is provided in the documentation which outlines the recent interest (from an investment perspective) with respect to cryptocurrency. There is a lack of information which outlines specific technical details of the platform, which seems as through the organization is utilizing the hype surrounding cryptocurrency/blockchain in order to raise funds, as opposed to using blockchain technology in a novel manner. Also, the roadmap and the development plans of the organization does not indicate that the company has clear plans of growth/development far into the future.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.7
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..."]).

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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: Information on the company is limited. According to the company’s LinkedIn page, BlockVest LLC was founded in 2017 and are based in San Diego, California. According to the company’s Form D, Blockvest LLC was incorporated in Wyoming.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team structure is presented on the company website as follows:

Blockvest Management Team
REGINALD RINGGOLD III | FOUNDER
LEO BANDOY | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DAVID DRAKE | CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER
GERALD GULAR | PRESIDENT
JACK J. BENSIMON | CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER
DOUGLAS ROBICHAUD | CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER
JIM MOSLEY | CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
ALFREDO GARCIA | CHIEF RISK OFFICER & FINANCIAL ADVISOR
ELVIN DIOSO | DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ALESIA HARPER | PROJECT MANAGER
PAUL VAN VESSEM | CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER
TAMMY DEAN | DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
MIKE SHEPPARD | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
GEORGE B. FREEMAN | CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST
YUNG MOC | DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES
ROBIN DEEN | CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER

Blockvest Compliance Committee
JERICHO DIOSO | CHIEF AUDIT EXECUTIVE
DAVE REY HERNANDEZ | CYBER SECURITY ANALYST
DEVID PARKER | QUANTITATIVE ANALYST

Blockvest Financial Advisory Team
SHAUN DINDIAL | CMA, FINANCIAL ANALYST
SEAN KIM | ADVISOR & STRATEGIC PARTNER
CONSTON TAYLOR | ADVISOR & STRATEGIC PARTNER

Blockvest Development Team
MOUNIR KOJA | SENIOR NETWORK DEVELOPER
VIDAL HERRERO | SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
EVAN MOON | FULL STACK DEVELOPER

The Founder is concurrently involved with a number of organizations (Blockchain Exchange Commission, Master Investment Group LLC, Rosegold Investments LLP, Reginald Ringgold INC). The CEO is concurrently involved with a private company as an trader and as a trading coach at Online Trading Academy. The Chief Strategic Officer does not disclose their involvement with the project. Investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the rest of the lead team members indicate that nearly all individuals are concurrently working as lead team members for other unrelated projects. All team members on the Blockvest development team do not disclose their involvement with the project. As a result, overall team commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is presented with a bio description and a link to their LinkedIn profile. The background of the development team, which consists of 3 individuals, is uncertain due to the lack of information presented their LinkedIn page. Most individuals from the Blockvest management team provide some details regarding prior work experience, with a few individuals expanding their particular roles and responsibilities as opposed to simply describing the organization that they worked for.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: From a finance perspective, there are a number of individuals that have had prior relevant experience working as consultants, managers/directors, and investors. When assessing the development team, it appears that there is only one individual that has had prior experience with blockchain technology development (Vidal Herrero). However, this individual seems to have worked on blockchain projects as a freelancer and does not disclose the specific projects that he has worked on.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Most individuals in key positions have skills that align more closely to finance. However, the team of is quite large. As a result, balance of skills seem appropriate for the project considering that the project does not involve high levels of complexity with respect to blockchain technology.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships/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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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: It is stated that those who purchase tokens during the ICO will receive 1-year free access to BlockvestAI, which includes:
– market research (complete catalog of news, reports, opinions, and Market data across blockchain space, individually tailored for every asset)
– analytics (technical and fundamental indicators)
– investment objective (suggest assets that preformed within investment goals, given the timeframe and the level of acceptance to exposure)

The value proposition of the token is specifically outlined in the pitch deck as follows:

– Promotion through prominent cryptocurrency groups on social media channels.
– Partner with influencers in the cryptocurrency industry to boost news around BLV.
– Ads on websites focused on cryptocurrencies (coinmarketcap, icostats, coinschedule, etc).
– Targeted ads on major social media outlets such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram

It is stated that “collateral holders are rewarded when users transact in the stablecoin, compensating them for staking the system”.

Overall, the token is issued primarily for funding purposes and its inherent value seems contrived.

Token Economy: Total supply: 100 million BLOCKVEST

Rates of Yield (YLD) is specifically outlined, along with the organization’s collateralization strategy. It is stated that the platform “will use a seven day rolling average of the market price for both Blockvest Tokens and Yields. This rolling average is designed to smooth out fluctuations in the market price and increase the cost of attacking the system”. Price change mechanisms are thoroughly discussed.

It is stated that “50% of quarterly trading profits will be paid in dividends in BLV to investors each quarter and 50% of monthly trading profits will be held for compounding growth”.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will use off-chain and on-chain governance. With respect to on-chain governance, BLV token holders will be “the network owners and managers, managing the network through voting in the network, using the YLD generated from BLV to utilize the functions in the network”. On the otherhand, off-chain governance consists of the BLV council which includes the founding members of the company and “are responsible for strategic decision-making, technical decision-making and specific implementation”. The rights of the BLV council and its electoral process are not specifically outlined.

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

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds will be used to purchase the following assets:

30% – closed-cap, tokenized cryptocurrency portfolio that
autonomously tracks the top 30 cryptocurrencies
25% – undervalued cryptos
20% – high potential ICOs
15% – POS/POW Mining & Masternode coins
10% – Reserve

There is some conflicting information with regards to the use of funds. The percentages outlined above are not clearly discussed. In the beginning of the pitch deck, it is stated that “thirty percent of the total amount contributed during the offering will go directly towards buying the underlying index cryptocurrencies”. If this is the case, the remaining portion of the use of funds is not clearly outlined.

Token Allocation: There is a lack of clarity with respect to the token distribution presented in the whitepaper.

The token allocation is shown as follows:
60% – Token sale
20% – Team and advisors
10% – Community development
10% – Core activities reserve

However, it is also stated that “BLV’s 100 million tokens is divided into two portions. The first portion is 50 million tokens will be distributed proportionally to supporters of Blockvest during the crowdfunding” and that “The second portion is 50 million BLV managed by the Blockvest Council to support Blockvest’s long-term development, operation and maintenance and ecosystem”.

The aforementioned statements contradict that chart outlining the token distribution.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper and a pitch deck is included on the company website. The pitch deck contains much of the content that is expected to be included in the whitepaper. In fact, when compared to the whitepaper, the pitch deck is much more comprehensive. However, the pitch deck heavily focuses on discussing background and market research as opposed to thoroughly outlining the solution. A document outlining the terms and conditions of the platform and the token generation event is also included. The whitepaper is quite short and lacks detail. The problem statement is vaguely discussed and the solution description is quite poorly written. Technical aspects of the platform are discussed broadly. Business-related content, such as market research, an assessment on potential competitors, marketing strategies, etc are lacking. Documentation primarily focuses on pricing mechanisms and market assessment. The team is presented on the company website. The link for the company GitHub page leads to the main GitHub page instead of the company page. Legal content is presented in the document which outlines terms and conditions.

Readability: The whitepaper is quite short and simple to read. The pitch deck however, takes considerable time to read. The use of figures/images is poor, and at times can be overwhelming or confusing. The readability of the pitch deck would significantly improve it it were more concise. Both documents are not organized well. The inclusion of a table of contents within the pitch deck would be beneficial.

Transparency: There is a lack of transparency with regards to various aspects of the platform. For example, the current stage of development is not clear. Potential competitors are not discussed and potential issues/limitations of the platform are not addressed. Some social media links provided on the company website do not lead to the company page.

With regards to the platform itself, it is stated that “Blockchain Investments funds are Audited by Deloitte and Stratumns Indigo Trace platform”. Furthermore, the organization claims that they will perform “daily self-certification of funds in conjunction with monthly external audits will ensure transparency and trust between BLV fund managers and shareholders”.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan is uncertain. There is a significant lack of detail presented on the company website. It is stated in the pitch deck that the “smart contract allows token owners to collect 50% of quarterly profits” and that “25% of profits is reinvested back into the fund”. Documents focus more on the token economics (pricing mechanisms, reward schemes, etc.) as opposed to the business development strategy of the organization.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical aspects of the platform such as the decentralized exchange and Nvestnodes are not discussed with the same level of detail as pricing mechanisms. These aspects of the platform are mainly presented in broad terms. For example, it is stated that “similar to NeoFS, Nvestnode will serve as one of the interoperability services under the BLVContract system, enabling smart contracts to store large files on the blockchain and set access for those files”.

Almost the entirety of the discussion on Nvestnodes is presented as follows: Nvestnodes are computers that run a Blockvest wallet and make decisions, such as voting and budget funding, as well as process transactions on the Blockvest platform for Transaction fees. Nvestnodes are required to keep 1000 BLV coins to meet the desired collateral requirement. You must maintain a dedicated IP address and be able to run it 24 hours a day without more than an hour connection loss. Nvestnodes get 50% of the block reward in every block, which is distributed to Nvestnodes one at at time. Further discussion regarding the infrastructure of the technology is essentially absent from the all documents.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The majority of the legal content can be found in the document which outlines the terms and conditions of the website, the token sale, and the platform. A link to the organization’s Form D (Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities) is provided: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1737601/000173760118000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml. AML/KYC procedures are outlined along with the organization’s privacy policy. Disclaimers and disclosures are included in the pitch deck.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very difficult to understand.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
2.5

Product

Differentiation: The following features are outlined in the whitepaper: – Analyze and pick investment opportunities from the list of options that are available on the Blockvest Crypto Platform. – Structure the investment portfolio and allocate capital to desired assets. – Track the portfolio performance. – Drill down to get the decomposition and verify the investment results. – Submit tokens for buyback to participate in the distribution of the fund’s income. – Download reports and export necessary analytical data. Most of the documentation focuses on discussing traditional markets versus cryptocurrency markets as opposed to evaluation potential competitors in the realm of blockchain-focused projects. The development of a stable coin alongside the organization’s goal to give users access to a cryptocurrency index differentiates it from similar projects that focus solely on the former or the latter, but the level of differentiation for the project is still is still low.

Readiness: Based on publicly available information, it seems as though the platform is still primarily an idea. The organization’s GitHub page was not available and demonstrations of the product are not presented.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap in the whitepaper is presented as follows: Feb to Mar 2018 – Release of whitepaper and technical plan description April 2018 – Private sale May 2018 – Expression of interest: 34% bonus July to August 2018 – Pre-ICO token sale: 25% bonus August until Sold Out – Global ICO October 2018 – Launch of Blockvest Platform Wallet and Nvestnode: Debut of Blockvest AI Intelligent portfolio management system November 2018 – Debut of decentralized exchange: full launch of Blockvest Decentralized Exchange with support for top 100 cryptocurrencies Most milestons pertain to the token sale. There is a lack of milestones that align to business and technology development plans.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, it seems as though the organization has merely conceptualized the platform instead of achieving meaningful developments both from a business and technical perspective.

Feasiblity: The goal of developing an exchange by November 2018 is quite ambitious considering that the organization has yet to reveal any notable technical achievements that the company has achieved thus far (July 2018).

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
1.5

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are primarily investors that would like to gain access to cryptocurrency markets.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration will be challenging considering the number of competitors in this sector and the regulatory obstacles that the organization faces as it develops “utility” tokens that allow users who stake BLV tokens to receive returns.

Direct Competition: There are a number of projects that aim to give investors access to cryptocurrency markets. Potential competitors include:

– CRYPTO20
– Index Coin
– ZNAQ
– Trident Coin
– IronChain Capital: MiX10
– PentaFund
– Altindex

Other stable coin projects include:

– Basecoin
– Bitshares
– BitCNY
– DAI
– DigixDAO
– Havven
– TrueUSD
– Tether
– USDX

Solution Advantage: The organization uses a proprietary trading strategy, thus the solution advantage is difficult to assess. Descriptions of the trading strategy are vague and the level of performance that the strategy can achieve is not certain. It is stated that “Blockchain Investments uses a proprietary trading strategy for trading all asset classes. The strategy uses variations of mean reverse, pattern recognition and Supply and Demand. The strategy employs risk modules to be able to keep drawdowns to a range of 6% to 15%. Blockchain Investments targets returns between 12% to 25% per annum with a Sharpe ratio of above .5”.

Blockchain Disruption: The platform primarily uses blockchain technology for the creation of tokens for the purposes of funding the project. There are vague descriptions of using Nvestnodes in order to operate wallets, make decisions (voting and budget funding), and process transactions. As a result, the level of disruption brought forth by the implementation of blockchain technology (as described by the solution) seems fairly low.

Long-Term Vision: A significant amount of content is provided in the documentation which outlines the recent interest (from an investment perspective) with respect to cryptocurrency. There is a lack of information which outlines specific technical details of the platform, which seems as through the organization is utilizing the hype surrounding cryptocurrency/blockchain in order to raise funds, as opposed to using blockchain technology in a novel manner. Also, the roadmap and the development plans of the organization does not indicate that the company has clear plans of growth/development far into the future.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Tiny or indeterminate.
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:
1.7

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Information on the company is limited. According to the company’s LinkedIn page, BlockVest LLC was founded in 2017 and are based in San Diego, California. According to the company’s Form D, Blockvest LLC was incorporated in Wyoming.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team structure is presented on the company website as follows:

Blockvest Management Team
REGINALD RINGGOLD III | FOUNDER
LEO BANDOY | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DAVID DRAKE | CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER
GERALD GULAR | PRESIDENT
JACK J. BENSIMON | CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER
DOUGLAS ROBICHAUD | CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER
JIM MOSLEY | CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
ALFREDO GARCIA | CHIEF RISK OFFICER & FINANCIAL ADVISOR
ELVIN DIOSO | DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ALESIA HARPER | PROJECT MANAGER
PAUL VAN VESSEM | CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER
TAMMY DEAN | DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
MIKE SHEPPARD | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
GEORGE B. FREEMAN | CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST
YUNG MOC | DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES
ROBIN DEEN | CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER

Blockvest Compliance Committee
JERICHO DIOSO | CHIEF AUDIT EXECUTIVE
DAVE REY HERNANDEZ | CYBER SECURITY ANALYST
DEVID PARKER | QUANTITATIVE ANALYST

Blockvest Financial Advisory Team
SHAUN DINDIAL | CMA, FINANCIAL ANALYST
SEAN KIM | ADVISOR & STRATEGIC PARTNER
CONSTON TAYLOR | ADVISOR & STRATEGIC PARTNER

Blockvest Development Team
MOUNIR KOJA | SENIOR NETWORK DEVELOPER
VIDAL HERRERO | SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
EVAN MOON | FULL STACK DEVELOPER

The Founder is concurrently involved with a number of organizations (Blockchain Exchange Commission, Master Investment Group LLC, Rosegold Investments LLP, Reginald Ringgold INC). The CEO is concurrently involved with a private company as an trader and as a trading coach at Online Trading Academy. The Chief Strategic Officer does not disclose their involvement with the project. Investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the rest of the lead team members indicate that nearly all individuals are concurrently working as lead team members for other unrelated projects. All team members on the Blockvest development team do not disclose their involvement with the project. As a result, overall team commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is presented with a bio description and a link to their LinkedIn profile. The background of the development team, which consists of 3 individuals, is uncertain due to the lack of information presented their LinkedIn page. Most individuals from the Blockvest management team provide some details regarding prior work experience, with a few individuals expanding their particular roles and responsibilities as opposed to simply describing the organization that they worked for.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: From a finance perspective, there are a number of individuals that have had prior relevant experience working as consultants, managers/directors, and investors. When assessing the development team, it appears that there is only one individual that has had prior experience with blockchain technology development (Vidal Herrero). However, this individual seems to have worked on blockchain projects as a freelancer and does not disclose the specific projects that he has worked on.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Most individuals in key positions have skills that align more closely to finance. However, the team of is quite large. As a result, balance of skills seem appropriate for the project considering that the project does not involve high levels of complexity with respect to blockchain technology.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships/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..."]).

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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:
2.7

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: It is stated that those who purchase tokens during the ICO will receive 1-year free access to BlockvestAI, which includes:
– market research (complete catalog of news, reports, opinions, and Market data across blockchain space, individually tailored for every asset)
– analytics (technical and fundamental indicators)
– investment objective (suggest assets that preformed within investment goals, given the timeframe and the level of acceptance to exposure)

The value proposition of the token is specifically outlined in the pitch deck as follows:

– Promotion through prominent cryptocurrency groups on social media channels.
– Partner with influencers in the cryptocurrency industry to boost news around BLV.
– Ads on websites focused on cryptocurrencies (coinmarketcap, icostats, coinschedule, etc).
– Targeted ads on major social media outlets such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram

It is stated that “collateral holders are rewarded when users transact in the stablecoin, compensating them for staking the system”.

Overall, the token is issued primarily for funding purposes and its inherent value seems contrived.

Token Economy: Total supply: 100 million BLOCKVEST

Rates of Yield (YLD) is specifically outlined, along with the organization’s collateralization strategy. It is stated that the platform “will use a seven day rolling average of the market price for both Blockvest Tokens and Yields. This rolling average is designed to smooth out fluctuations in the market price and increase the cost of attacking the system”. Price change mechanisms are thoroughly discussed.

It is stated that “50% of quarterly trading profits will be paid in dividends in BLV to investors each quarter and 50% of monthly trading profits will be held for compounding growth”.

System Decentralization (besides token): The platform will use off-chain and on-chain governance. With respect to on-chain governance, BLV token holders will be “the network owners and managers, managing the network through voting in the network, using the YLD generated from BLV to utilize the functions in the network”. On the otherhand, off-chain governance consists of the BLV council which includes the founding members of the company and “are responsible for strategic decision-making, technical decision-making and specific implementation”. The rights of the BLV council and its electoral process are not specifically outlined.

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

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds will be used to purchase the following assets:

30% – closed-cap, tokenized cryptocurrency portfolio that
autonomously tracks the top 30 cryptocurrencies
25% – undervalued cryptos
20% – high potential ICOs
15% – POS/POW Mining & Masternode coins
10% – Reserve

There is some conflicting information with regards to the use of funds. The percentages outlined above are not clearly discussed. In the beginning of the pitch deck, it is stated that “thirty percent of the total amount contributed during the offering will go directly towards buying the underlying index cryptocurrencies”. If this is the case, the remaining portion of the use of funds is not clearly outlined.

Token Allocation: There is a lack of clarity with respect to the token distribution presented in the whitepaper.

The token allocation is shown as follows:
60% – Token sale
20% – Team and advisors
10% – Community development
10% – Core activities reserve

However, it is also stated that “BLV’s 100 million tokens is divided into two portions. The first portion is 50 million tokens will be distributed proportionally to supporters of Blockvest during the crowdfunding” and that “The second portion is 50 million BLV managed by the Blockvest Council to support Blockvest’s long-term development, operation and maintenance and ecosystem”.

The aforementioned statements contradict that chart outlining the token distribution.

 

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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