Desico

A platform to issue and trade security tokens in full compliance with the law.

About Desico

DESICO claims to be the first platform that allows users to issue, buy, and sell security tokens in full compliance with the (Lithuanian) law. The platform offers an all-in-one solution for ICO development and security token exchange. Organizations that plan to launch on the DESICO platform are formally interviewed and their business modeled is verified, and also go through KYC/AML procedures. DESI token holders are provided discounts and early access to investment opportunities. Additionally, DESI tokens are used two invest in projects and token holders will also receive voting privileges with regards the the platform’s community ICO ranking service. Users that complete ICO reviews will be compensate with DESI.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.0
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Appearing to misinform or deliberately obfuscate critical information. Hiding the real nature or state of the project.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; little or no technical discussion.
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 problem statement is discussed, along with a discussion on security tokens compared to utility tokens and VC funding. Market research is presented with statistics and data which are cited appropriately. There is a lack of discussion regarding potential competitors. Specific technical discussion is minimal and the business plan is discussed with low levels of detail. The team is presented in the whitepaper and the company website, along with LinkedIn profiles. The organization’s GitHub page is not provided. Legal content is available but somewhat limited in scope.

Readability: The whitepaper is simple to read. The document provides a brief overview of the intended features of the platform as opposed to provided a specific technical outlined of how the platform will operate.

Transparency: There seems to be a lack of transparency regarding the regulatory framework of Lithuania. The whitepaper makes it seem as though it is sufficient to operate within the legal framework of the Crowdfunding Law of the Republic of Lithuania. However, on July 11, 2018 the Ministry of Finance released a document specifying the guidelines for ICO: http://finmin.lrv.lt/uploads/finmin/documents/files/ICO%20Guidelines%20Lithuania.pdf, which is not formal legislation. As such, although the legality of cryptocurrency in Lithuania seems favorable, the regulatory framework has yet to be finalized and is still in development. It is uncertain when the platform launches, whether the organization will be able to operate the platform as desired. Furthermore, developments made towards an external organization, FinBee.com, are claimed to be milestones reached for DESICO.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Business related details of the platform are somewhat vague. For example, instead of providing specific details with regards to the fees to list an ICO on the platform, it is merely stated that “”the cost of listing an ICO on the DESICO platform will be approximately one third of the current total cost for launching and listing an ICO through various service providers””. Competing service providers and the corresponding listing costs are not discussed. The projected number of ICOs on the DESICO platform, but without discussion regarding assumptions or how the projection is justified. Additionally, “”DESICO plans to service 50 ICOs and attract up to 50,000 investors to the DESICO platform during the first year of its operations””, but further discussion as to how the platform will be able to accomplish this (or why this is a reasonable assumption) is not included.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The technical discussion is minimal. It is merely stated that “”transaction-level”” data will be stored on the Ethereum blockchain and a vague discussion of using side-chains to “”allow DESlCO to scale its operations and avoid possible network congestions””. Specific details are not outlined.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: When considering the emphasis on the platform’s regulatory compliance, there seems to be a lack of legal documents provided by the organization. The legal content is primarily limited to a brief two-page disclaimer towards the beginning of the whitepaper. It is stated that “”tokens to be issued by the Company are not intended to constitute securities and/or collective investment units in any jurisdiction””. DESI tokens are intended to be utility tokens.

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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: In the whitepaper it is stated that the platform has “”already received support from the Ministry of Finance [of the Republic of Lithuania]””. The platform intends to operate with regulatory compliance. DESI token holders (irrespective of token amount) will receive early access access to investment opportunities. Private or pre-sale arrangements will not be permitted for DESICO ICOs.

Readiness: It is stated that the organization has built a crowdfunding platform. However, the platform does not seem to be publicly available. At the time of review, based on publicly available content, the platform is primarily an idea.

Concreteness of Development Plans: 2015 / Q3 – DESICO core team establishes p2p lending platform – Key features: real time bidding, automated investments, secondary market, user friendly interface 2017 / Q1 – DESICO core team launches crowdfunding platform for businesses 2017 / Q3 – DESICO core team receives e-money license for crowdfunding platform 2018 / Q1 – DESICO core team becomes a member of the ICO regulatory development team, setup by the Ministry of Finance 2018 / Q2 – Formation of developers team – Promoting the platform among blockchain community 2018 / Q2-Q3 – DESICO token sale 2019 / Q2 – Launch of security ICO platform – Beta version 2019 / Q3 – Launch of payment system for crypto/fiat 2019 / Q4 – Launch of built-in exchange – Launch of offices in Berlin and Amsterdam 2020 / Q3 – Launch of security ICO platform – full version The organization plans to expand to Amsterdam, Dublin, and Berlin. Most milestones are related to business development. More details could be provided for the technical milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Details of the crowdfunding platform that has been supposedly developed are not publicly accessible. Other than receiving an endorsement from the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, it does not seem like the organization has reached significant milestones.

Feasiblity: The platform hinges on the regulatory structure regarding ICOs set out by Lithuania. At the current time, the regulatory support from Lithuania looks favorable but has yet to be well-defined (ICO guidelines have been released as opposed to formal legislation). Details of the crowdfunding platform are minimal, but the timeline to develop a beta version of the ICO platform (Q2 2019) seems reasonable.

Blockchain Innovation: The project does not provide value from a blockchain technology perspective.

Product Company and Team

Market

2.7
Market
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
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...

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding 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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Undeniable.
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.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.

Market

Target User Base: The target use base of the platform are investors, particularly those that are adept with cryptocurrency. There is potential to compete within the venture capital market, but the success of the platform not only depends on whether the company can deliver a competitive product, but one that is in full compliance with regulations regarding ICOs/cryptocurrencies/securities.

Market Penetration Potential: DESICO aims to “”disrupt the global $155 billion venture capital market by introducing security tokens through blockchain””. With the increase in popularity in cryptocurrency as a vehicle for investment in conjunction with regulatory support from Lithuania, the potential to penetrate the market is moderate.

Direct Competition: Competitors are not discussed in the whitepaper. However, potential competitors that allow trading of security tokens include (but not limited to): – Polymath – tZERO – VRBex – Circle – Poloniex – Securitize – Coinlist – Open Finance – TrustToken – Harbor

Solution Advantage: Throughout the document it is repeated that the organization will have a competitive advantage due to the regulatory framework regarding crowdfunding in Lithuania. However, when assessing the platform itself, advantages of the platform are does described with great detail and are not novel.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential to disrupt venture capital investment with the use of cryptocurrency is evident. A marketplace that users will be able to deploy, buy, and sell security tokens lowers the barrier to entry for early-stage investment.

Long-Term Vision: It is stated that it will comply with the Law of Crowdfunding of the Republic of Lithuania, which “allows ICOs to raise capital by issuing security tokens” and will be supervised by the Bank of Lithuania. Based on the information presented in the whitepaper, it seems as though the organization views the platform as an evolution of investment funding which allows retail investors to participate in early stage investments. The platform intends to expand to Dublin, Berlin, and Amsterdam.

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

3.0
N/A
3 - A few SMB's; may include founder or advisor related ventures but shows ability to expand beyond.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The organization is registered in Lithuania. According the the company’s LinkedIn page, the organization is a privately-held company that was founded in 2018. It is unclear if the company has received significant amounts of investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 17 team members and 5 advisors are presented in the whitepaper. The individual with the most notable work experience (the CTO) does not disclose their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn page. The team structure is outlined in the whitepaper as follows: Laimonas Noreika | CEO & co-founder Audrius Griskevicius | CBDO & co-founder Tim Simon | CTO Darius Noreika | COO & co-founder Vytautas Matulevicius | CMO Nico Muro | Chief Design Officer Irmantas Kanopa | Senior Developer Deividas Norkunas | Junior Developer George East | Public Relations Officer Ingrida Willems | Community Manager Greta Jonaityte | Content & Creative lead Augustinas Kosys | Chief Security Officer Povilas Laucius | Development Lead Arturas Paleicikas | Smart Contract Developer Raimondas Reinikis | Quality Assurance Manager Vitalijus Misikovas | Developer Marius Lukosiunas | Developer

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Brief bio descriptions (3-5 sentences) are included in the whitepaper. LinkedIn profiles can be found on the company website. The information presented regarding the current roles of the C-level executives are limited to either a brief statement about the DESICO platform or no information at all. Prior work experience is listed for all C-level executives.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most developers on the team have prior experience with web/mobile development and have previously worked on FinBee.com, a p2p lending platform. The smart contract developer does not seem to have prior development experience with blockchain-related projects based on the prior work history listed on their LinkedIn page. The CTO is stated to have developed Quotient, which “”supported half of the London Stock Exchange””. However, it should be noted that this individual does not disclose their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profile.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a moderate balance between individuals with a technical and business background. Based on the nature of the project, it seems as though the team lacks individuals with a background in law. There is only a single legal advisor on the team. Individuals with verifiable blockchain-related development experience is lacking.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnership/launch partners with significant user bases are not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
Token Economy

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
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).

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: DESI tokens provide users the ability to gain early access to investment opportunities (specific details are not outlined), and are used to to pay platform fees that are required to register ICOs on the DESICO platform. Active token holders are also exempt from trading fees on the DESICO security token exchange.

Token Economy: Total supply: 804 million DESI There is a brief section in the whitepaper that addresses token economy and token circulation. Vague/generic statements are included which inadequately describe the token economics of the platform in great detail. For example, it is stated that “”As DESICO grows, more tokens will be listed on its exchange, and trading activity on it will grow””.

System Decentralization (besides token): In the whitepaper, it is stated that “”As DESlCO embraces decentralization and disintermediation, it will not act as a middleman in any transaction during or after any lCO carried out on the DESlCO platform””. It is not clear whether the organization ultimately intends to become an decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Considering the fact that the ICO listing approval process is dependent on the judgment of those from the DESICO team, it seems as though decentralization is not a core aspect of the governance structure of the platform.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $3,500,000 USD Hard cap: $32,000,000 USD Raise amounts are not adequately justified and thus seem unrelated to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 32% – Platform development (ICO launch infrastructure, platform interface, exchange operations, etc) 20% – Marketing 18% – Business development 11% – Operational 10% – Reserve 9% – Legal and regulatory Further details regarding the use of funds is limited.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented as follows: 51% – Crowdsale 14% – Reserve 10% – Founders 10% – Team 8% – Financial supporters 4% – Advisors 3% – Bounty Vesting periods are not outlined and unsold tokens will be put into reserve. The use of the reserve funds is inadequately discussed.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is discussed, along with a discussion on security tokens compared to utility tokens and VC funding. Market research is presented with statistics and data which are cited appropriately. There is a lack of discussion regarding potential competitors. Specific technical discussion is minimal and the business plan is discussed with low levels of detail. The team is presented in the whitepaper and the company website, along with LinkedIn profiles. The organization’s GitHub page is not provided. Legal content is available but somewhat limited in scope.

Readability: The whitepaper is simple to read. The document provides a brief overview of the intended features of the platform as opposed to provided a specific technical outlined of how the platform will operate.

Transparency: There seems to be a lack of transparency regarding the regulatory framework of Lithuania. The whitepaper makes it seem as though it is sufficient to operate within the legal framework of the Crowdfunding Law of the Republic of Lithuania. However, on July 11, 2018 the Ministry of Finance released a document specifying the guidelines for ICO: http://finmin.lrv.lt/uploads/finmin/documents/files/ICO%20Guidelines%20Lithuania.pdf, which is not formal legislation. As such, although the legality of cryptocurrency in Lithuania seems favorable, the regulatory framework has yet to be finalized and is still in development. It is uncertain when the platform launches, whether the organization will be able to operate the platform as desired. Furthermore, developments made towards an external organization, FinBee.com, are claimed to be milestones reached for DESICO.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Business related details of the platform are somewhat vague. For example, instead of providing specific details with regards to the fees to list an ICO on the platform, it is merely stated that “”the cost of listing an ICO on the DESICO platform will be approximately one third of the current total cost for launching and listing an ICO through various service providers””. Competing service providers and the corresponding listing costs are not discussed. The projected number of ICOs on the DESICO platform, but without discussion regarding assumptions or how the projection is justified. Additionally, “”DESICO plans to service 50 ICOs and attract up to 50,000 investors to the DESICO platform during the first year of its operations””, but further discussion as to how the platform will be able to accomplish this (or why this is a reasonable assumption) is not included.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The technical discussion is minimal. It is merely stated that “”transaction-level”” data will be stored on the Ethereum blockchain and a vague discussion of using side-chains to “”allow DESlCO to scale its operations and avoid possible network congestions””. Specific details are not outlined.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: When considering the emphasis on the platform’s regulatory compliance, there seems to be a lack of legal documents provided by the organization. The legal content is primarily limited to a brief two-page disclaimer towards the beginning of the whitepaper. It is stated that “”tokens to be issued by the Company are not intended to constitute securities and/or collective investment units in any jurisdiction””. DESI tokens are intended to be utility tokens.

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Appearing to misinform or deliberately obfuscate critical information. Hiding the real nature or state of the project.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; little or no technical discussion.
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:
2.0

Product

Differentiation: In the whitepaper it is stated that the platform has “”already received support from the Ministry of Finance [of the Republic of Lithuania]””. The platform intends to operate with regulatory compliance. DESI token holders (irrespective of token amount) will receive early access access to investment opportunities. Private or pre-sale arrangements will not be permitted for DESICO ICOs.

Readiness: It is stated that the organization has built a crowdfunding platform. However, the platform does not seem to be publicly available. At the time of review, based on publicly available content, the platform is primarily an idea.

Concreteness of Development Plans: 2015 / Q3 – DESICO core team establishes p2p lending platform – Key features: real time bidding, automated investments, secondary market, user friendly interface 2017 / Q1 – DESICO core team launches crowdfunding platform for businesses 2017 / Q3 – DESICO core team receives e-money license for crowdfunding platform 2018 / Q1 – DESICO core team becomes a member of the ICO regulatory development team, setup by the Ministry of Finance 2018 / Q2 – Formation of developers team – Promoting the platform among blockchain community 2018 / Q2-Q3 – DESICO token sale 2019 / Q2 – Launch of security ICO platform – Beta version 2019 / Q3 – Launch of payment system for crypto/fiat 2019 / Q4 – Launch of built-in exchange – Launch of offices in Berlin and Amsterdam 2020 / Q3 – Launch of security ICO platform – full version The organization plans to expand to Amsterdam, Dublin, and Berlin. Most milestones are related to business development. More details could be provided for the technical milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Details of the crowdfunding platform that has been supposedly developed are not publicly accessible. Other than receiving an endorsement from the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, it does not seem like the organization has reached significant milestones.

Feasiblity: The platform hinges on the regulatory structure regarding ICOs set out by Lithuania. At the current time, the regulatory support from Lithuania looks favorable but has yet to be well-defined (ICO guidelines have been released as opposed to formal legislation). Details of the crowdfunding platform are minimal, but the timeline to develop a beta version of the ICO platform (Q2 2019) seems reasonable.

Blockchain Innovation: The project does not provide value 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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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:
1.8

Market

Target User Base: The target use base of the platform are investors, particularly those that are adept with cryptocurrency. There is potential to compete within the venture capital market, but the success of the platform not only depends on whether the company can deliver a competitive product, but one that is in full compliance with regulations regarding ICOs/cryptocurrencies/securities.

Market Penetration Potential: DESICO aims to “”disrupt the global $155 billion venture capital market by introducing security tokens through blockchain””. With the increase in popularity in cryptocurrency as a vehicle for investment in conjunction with regulatory support from Lithuania, the potential to penetrate the market is moderate.

Direct Competition: Competitors are not discussed in the whitepaper. However, potential competitors that allow trading of security tokens include (but not limited to): – Polymath – tZERO – VRBex – Circle – Poloniex – Securitize – Coinlist – Open Finance – TrustToken – Harbor

Solution Advantage: Throughout the document it is repeated that the organization will have a competitive advantage due to the regulatory framework regarding crowdfunding in Lithuania. However, when assessing the platform itself, advantages of the platform are does described with great detail and are not novel.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential to disrupt venture capital investment with the use of cryptocurrency is evident. A marketplace that users will be able to deploy, buy, and sell security tokens lowers the barrier to entry for early-stage investment.

Long-Term Vision: It is stated that it will comply with the Law of Crowdfunding of the Republic of Lithuania, which “allows ICOs to raise capital by issuing security tokens” and will be supervised by the Bank of Lithuania. Based on the information presented in the whitepaper, it seems as though the organization views the platform as an evolution of investment funding which allows retail investors to participate in early stage investments. The platform intends to expand to Dublin, Berlin, and Amsterdam.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
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...

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding 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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Undeniable.
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.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
2.7

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: The organization is registered in Lithuania. According the the company’s LinkedIn page, the organization is a privately-held company that was founded in 2018. It is unclear if the company has received significant amounts of investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 17 team members and 5 advisors are presented in the whitepaper. The individual with the most notable work experience (the CTO) does not disclose their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn page. The team structure is outlined in the whitepaper as follows: Laimonas Noreika | CEO & co-founder Audrius Griskevicius | CBDO & co-founder Tim Simon | CTO Darius Noreika | COO & co-founder Vytautas Matulevicius | CMO Nico Muro | Chief Design Officer Irmantas Kanopa | Senior Developer Deividas Norkunas | Junior Developer George East | Public Relations Officer Ingrida Willems | Community Manager Greta Jonaityte | Content & Creative lead Augustinas Kosys | Chief Security Officer Povilas Laucius | Development Lead Arturas Paleicikas | Smart Contract Developer Raimondas Reinikis | Quality Assurance Manager Vitalijus Misikovas | Developer Marius Lukosiunas | Developer

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Brief bio descriptions (3-5 sentences) are included in the whitepaper. LinkedIn profiles can be found on the company website. The information presented regarding the current roles of the C-level executives are limited to either a brief statement about the DESICO platform or no information at all. Prior work experience is listed for all C-level executives.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most developers on the team have prior experience with web/mobile development and have previously worked on FinBee.com, a p2p lending platform. The smart contract developer does not seem to have prior development experience with blockchain-related projects based on the prior work history listed on their LinkedIn page. The CTO is stated to have developed Quotient, which “”supported half of the London Stock Exchange””. However, it should be noted that this individual does not disclose their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profile.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a moderate balance between individuals with a technical and business background. Based on the nature of the project, it seems as though the team lacks individuals with a background in law. There is only a single legal advisor on the team. Individuals with verifiable blockchain-related development experience is lacking.

Strategic Partnerships: Strategic partnership/launch partners with significant user bases 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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

3.0
N/A
3 - A few SMB's; may include founder or advisor related ventures but shows ability to expand beyond.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: DESI tokens provide users the ability to gain early access to investment opportunities (specific details are not outlined), and are used to to pay platform fees that are required to register ICOs on the DESICO platform. Active token holders are also exempt from trading fees on the DESICO security token exchange.

Token Economy: Total supply: 804 million DESI There is a brief section in the whitepaper that addresses token economy and token circulation. Vague/generic statements are included which inadequately describe the token economics of the platform in great detail. For example, it is stated that “”As DESICO grows, more tokens will be listed on its exchange, and trading activity on it will grow””.

System Decentralization (besides token): In the whitepaper, it is stated that “”As DESlCO embraces decentralization and disintermediation, it will not act as a middleman in any transaction during or after any lCO carried out on the DESlCO platform””. It is not clear whether the organization ultimately intends to become an decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Considering the fact that the ICO listing approval process is dependent on the judgment of those from the DESICO team, it seems as though decentralization is not a core aspect of the governance structure of the platform.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $3,500,000 USD Hard cap: $32,000,000 USD Raise amounts are not adequately justified and thus seem unrelated to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows: 32% – Platform development (ICO launch infrastructure, platform interface, exchange operations, etc) 20% – Marketing 18% – Business development 11% – Operational 10% – Reserve 9% – Legal and regulatory Further details regarding the use of funds is limited.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented as follows: 51% – Crowdsale 14% – Reserve 10% – Founders 10% – Team 8% – Financial supporters 4% – Advisors 3% – Bounty Vesting periods are not outlined and unsold tokens will be put into reserve. The use of the reserve funds is inadequately discussed.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
Token Economy

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
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).

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:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website