dutyof.care

A better way to make vulnerable people safer

About dutyof.care

Dutyof.care aims to build a platform that allows organizations to achieve and maintain compliance with regards to vulnerable people. Compliance tools are currently inadequate. The platform allows organizations to verify and re-verify credentials without compromising user privacy. One of the 10 recommendations from Australia for “child-safe” standards is that “people working with children are suitable and supported”. However, “siloed government provided online systems… aren’t robust enough to ensure organizations are meeting their obligations”. Blockchain technology will be used as a storage mechanism for recording each time accreditations are verified (with compliance to privacy laws), so that other accreditations are able to assess the validity of other accreditations. The platform is a cloud hosted platform which enables companies to manage mandatory accreditations which are a legal requirement for organizations that work with vulnerable individuals. Verification is stored on the blockchain and ensures proof of compliance, simplifying the process. VDOC tokens are used to access the platform via a pay-per-use model.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.2
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.

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document primarily discusses the current issues with accreditations. There is a lack of detail with regards to the dutyof.care platform. The technological implementation is discussed very briefly and contains fairly generic language with respect to blockchain technology. Other vague comments stating that the platform will use “tools developed and deployed by some of the largest companies globally” lack clarity. Four documents are presented through the dutyof.care website: the whitepaper, the terms and conditions of the token sale, the token sale details, and a smart contract audit (although it is stated that “the audit documentation is for discussion purposes only” and “makes no statements or warranties about utility of the code, safety of the code, suitability of the business model, regulatory regime for the business model, or any other statements about fitness of the contracts to purpose, or their bug free status”).

Readability: The document is fairly readable. There is a slight lack of clarity with regards to the problem statement and the proposed solution lacks specific details. Overall, there no apparent intentional obfuscation of the information presented in the whitepaper.

Transparency: Limitations of the platform are openly discussed: “there is strictly limited information that can be encoded on the blockchain due to privacy laws”. Additionally, an audit of the ICO smart contracts are provided and can be found on through the website.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The platform will utilize a ‘pay-per-use model’ (transaction fees), but will be provided to smaller NFPs, free of charge. It is stated that organizations that share verification results “may receive rewards for participating in the eco-system”. Information regarding growth strategies and fiscal projections are not included.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The platform is planned to be implemented on the Ethereum blockchain. For each “verification event”, the following attributes may be recorded and written into the blockchain: – Accreditation number – Last validated – Accreditation status – this will support fulfillment of the workflow – Verifier ID – a non-identifying alias for the organization which performed the verification – Notification of events which can be achieved by subscribing to a contract Overall, technical specifics are lacking from the project description. Code examples of smart contracts which will be utilized would be beneficial.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a section towards the end of the whitepaper the discusses the risk factors associated with the platform and the token sale. Additionally, there is a document that outlines the terms and conditions of the of the token sale, which is fairly comprehensive and professionally written.

Documentation Market

Product

2.8
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.

Product

Differentiation: On a technical level, the solution is fairly simplistic. However, the implementation of the technology is being used in a manner that makes sense and has practical use. There are little to no blockchain-focused competitors that have the same goals as BBH and the dutyof.care platform.

Readiness: It is stated that since February 2018, an invitation-only private beta has been available for a “carefully selected” group of organizations from human and community services sector. Descriptions of some of the organizations involved with the private beta are listed (but not specifically named). A prototype was developed in September 2017 and is publicly available on GitHub.

Concreteness of Development Plans: Achievements to date are presented in the whitepaper as follows: – Establish the foundational elements of the functional model and roadmap – Engaged a focus group of organisations who are wrestling with these obligations to act as a sounding board, advisory group, and when ready a pilot group – Established a backlog of stories and user journeys to progress the functional delivery – Established a set of MVP capabilities to take to market – Established the foundation elements of the infrastructure platform (currently finalizing for Production deployment) – Established a draft of the expected operating model – Commenced build of the stories (functionality) in iterative, agile sprints. Currently, we are nearing MVP completion. – Go-to-market strategy, marketing and branding – Created Social Media footprint – Soft launch of the product (pre-registrations) held at the annual CEO’s National Disability Services conference in Sydney, in late 2017 Product functionality development plans are presented as follows: – Help organisations by enabling a dashboard of the readiness to provide services to vulnerable people – Therefore, organisations need to be registered – Users need to administer those organisations, with an immutable audit history of who was given what permissions, when, and by whom – Accreditations needs to be established and captured for individuals as members, or constituents of those organisations – A “proof of life” style check will be required for each constituent who will provide services to vulnerable people – Accreditations need to be verified (some will be possible automatically, once initially sighted) to ensure they continue to be valid – Our application will capture and maintain a collection of auditable events, including organisation and user management and changes. Future development plans are presented as follows: – Enabling a card scanning facility from a mobile phone. – Allowing individuals to login and manage their accreditations – Grow the movement of VDOC Tokens associated with actions in dutyof.care. This will promote the dutyof.care economy and incentivise organisations to see and track the VDOC they have accrued -Allow organisations to pick the frequency of automated checking of accreditations to help control their subscription fees – Expand the accreditation types available to include broader training certificate tracking and expiry dates (these can’t be revoked – so are an easier, more pervasive kind of accreditation). – Expand the API integration to other companion or complementary systems to enable a more seamless on-boarding process for staff in organisations. This might include: Integration via web hooks/API from HR systems to automatically notify dutyof.care when a new staff member or volunteer is added to the organisations key HR system – Authentication to enable Seamless if not Single Sign On – Streamlining on-boarding by allowing migration from existing incident management systems into dutyof.care. Examples may include CRIS which is used in Victoria The goals presented are fairly descriptive. Overall development plans are included in the roadmaps. However, timelines are not included.

Current Position within Roadmap: Milestones reached thus far not particularly notable. There is much technical development that needs to be done. There is currently no publicly available content to assess state of development.

Feasibility: At a technological level, the goals of the platform are fairly straightforward and quite feasible: BBH plans to leverage blockchain technology in order to create a public ledger which can be used to assess the legitimacy of accreditations. On a regulatory level, the platform will face some friction with regards to privacy laws.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform will simply use the Ethereum blockchain to develop a public ledger. Elaborate smart contract development is not required for the platform to operate. As a result, the project does is not innovative with respect to blockchain technology.

Product Company and Team

Market

4.0
Market
Target User Base

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
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.

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any direct competition (e.g., hard to find, or solution is highly advanced). Blockchain solutions still rare in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.

Market

Target User Base: Initially, the platform will target Australian organizations and expand globally. It is stated that organizations that may be served by the dutyof.care platform are any organizations that are trusted with the care of vulnerable people (including non-profit and private sector operators in disabilities, education and para-education, aged care, community groups, sporting clubs, and a broad array of other organizations). In the whitepaper, it is found that the (conservative) estimate for the addressable market in Australia is 10,000-15,000 organizations and 5,000,000 individuals, with an millions of credentials re-validated weekly to annually. Overall, the target user base is somewhat niche, but still has a wide reach (every school,kindergarten, playgroup, church, sporting club, adventure and member organisations like Scouts, Guides, martial arts, hospitals, dance schools and music schools with a mix of paid employees and volunteers).

Market Penetration Potential: Current solutions are difficult to use and cumbersome. A thorough discussion on the problems associated with existing solutions is included in the whitepaper. The platform is able to provide a much more simple (and secure) method of verifying accreditations. Thus, the ability to reach widespread adoption is possible.

Direct Competition: Current competitors are discussed with moderate detail. Overall, BBH claims that there a small number of parties present in the market, but “have vulnerabilities and limitations that indicate they aren’t solving this need as completely as is required to achieve the outcome for organisations and ultimately vulnerable people”. Two specific competing solutions are Everproof (formerly BlueQ) and Safety Management Online (SMO).

Solution Advantage: When compared to Everproof, it is stated that the “implementation falls short in helping organisations with weaknesses in the validation points used to ensure people are who they say they are and possess accreditations themselves as opposed to possibly being able to use the accreditations of significant others”. With regards to SMO, it is believed that the organization is not “not being actively expanded in its functionality and we consider that it does not offer a modern, web-based user experience”. Overall, dutyof.care’s solution aims to effectively verify identification while providing an easy to use (web-based) interface.

Blockchain Disruption: Existing solutions are significantly obsolete. There is a lack of adequate tools available. For example, it is discussed in the whitepaper that some methods of proof of compliance require the submission of an un-editable PDF document. The use of blockchain technology allows for verification to take place efficiently, while ensuring privacy.

Long-Term Vision: The project began as a passion project. The organizations aims to expand the reach of the platform and help organizations serve vulnerable people on a global scale. It is stated that many of the team members have had personal experiences with the inefficiencies of the system.

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.

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: Blue Bike Solutions (BBS) was established in 2009 and Blue Bike Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 611 782 882) (BBH) was launched in 2016. BBH has been “incubating this concept and how to take the right solution to market, since 2016”.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 8 core team members (4 individuals form the tech leadership team and the 4 team members have skills that align with business development) presented on the website along with 3 advisors and 8 individuals in an “industry focus group”. It is not clear if the team is looking to expand.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All and core team members provide links to LinkedIn profiles (only 4 provide bio descriptions). The product lead and the DevOps lead also include links to the GitHub page (the product lead has minimal activity whereas the DevOps lead is very active). Three core team members do not indicate affiliation with dutyof.care on their LinkedIn profiles (all core team members indicate affiliation with BBS).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: It is not evident that the technology-focused team members has had prior experience developing smart contracts of have worked on blockchain-focused projects. However, the project does not seem to require a high level of technical prowess.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The solution does not seem to require a highly technical team to accomplish. Nevertheless, the lead team members seem to have a fairly technical background. The CEO has worked as a senior consultant at IBM, and was a manager at Accenture. He has a background in as project leader and data warehousing.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable strategic partnerships or launch partners 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?

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Use cases of VOC tokens are described fairly thoroughly (approximately one page of written content). In short, users user VOC tokens in exchange for various activities in the ecosystem, including: – Verifying a person’s accreditation – Re-asserting accreditations – Integration from HR (and other) systems through web hooks – Authentication of users with an organisations’ credentials – Reporting on the dashboard, managing users, groups and other functionality to facilitate the above However, it should be noted that VDOC tokens give a discount to the pay-per-use fees as opposed to providing exclusive access to services.

Token Economy: Total supply: 100,000,000 VDOC VDOC is an ERC20 compliant token.It is stated that VDOC tokens are used to “incentivise and reward behaviors which promote the usage and expanding the user base of the dutyof.care platform”. Transaction fees are reduced with the use of VDOC tokens.

System Decentralization (besides token): At its initial stages of development, dutyof.care will be semi-decentralized with BBH operating the oracle service for dutyof.care platform. BBH will ensure that information written to the public ledger will be “accurate and has complete integrity”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): 

  • Total supply: unspecified
  • Soft cap: unspecified
  • Hard cap: unspecified

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is described qualitatively as follows: Short term calendar 2018, with focus on: – Covering the costs of the development and marketing of the platform for the functional groupings through MVP (due December 2017) through the key incremental functionality expansion – Supporting establishment of the business and team to operationally manage the platform – Holding reserves to supporting ongoing operational considerations include Gas and hosting fees Longer term 2019 and beyond: – Extra funds will keep supporting the continued functional expansion of the product with richer integration and more comprehensive processes in and around the compliance space – Fund the expansion into other sectors and geographic markets (should be Australian national from the start) – Fund the ongoing operational usage of the platform to seek to lower the costs for organisations to use the platform to demonstrate compliance In addition to the development costs above, there will be: – a reserve of VDOC, ETH and AUD to cover the platform operational costs – a reserve to support the allocation to the organisations that sign up with rewards bonuses and usage “credits” – support the “no cost” provision of the platform to dutyof.care platform users for a period Overall, without quantitative details with respect to the use of proceeds, the information presented lacks clarity.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the website as follows: 12% – Pre-launch + bonus 68% – Main sale 15% – Foundation 5% – Core team Vesting periods are not clearly outlined. The purpose for each allocation is outlined in the document: Pre-launch + bonus – Support for beta, and promotion of Token Sale (includes pre-sale bonus) Main sale – Fundraising for accelerated platform and business development Foundation – Rewards, incentives and long-term sustainability of VDOC Core team – Retention, attraction and rewards to help ensure a great platform.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document primarily discusses the current issues with accreditations. There is a lack of detail with regards to the dutyof.care platform. The technological implementation is discussed very briefly and contains fairly generic language with respect to blockchain technology. Other vague comments stating that the platform will use “tools developed and deployed by some of the largest companies globally” lack clarity. Four documents are presented through the dutyof.care website: the whitepaper, the terms and conditions of the token sale, the token sale details, and a smart contract audit (although it is stated that “the audit documentation is for discussion purposes only” and “makes no statements or warranties about utility of the code, safety of the code, suitability of the business model, regulatory regime for the business model, or any other statements about fitness of the contracts to purpose, or their bug free status”).

Readability: The document is fairly readable. There is a slight lack of clarity with regards to the problem statement and the proposed solution lacks specific details. Overall, there no apparent intentional obfuscation of the information presented in the whitepaper.

Transparency: Limitations of the platform are openly discussed: “there is strictly limited information that can be encoded on the blockchain due to privacy laws”. Additionally, an audit of the ICO smart contracts are provided and can be found on through the website.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The platform will utilize a ‘pay-per-use model’ (transaction fees), but will be provided to smaller NFPs, free of charge. It is stated that organizations that share verification results “may receive rewards for participating in the eco-system”. Information regarding growth strategies and fiscal projections are not included.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The platform is planned to be implemented on the Ethereum blockchain. For each “verification event”, the following attributes may be recorded and written into the blockchain: – Accreditation number – Last validated – Accreditation status – this will support fulfillment of the workflow – Verifier ID – a non-identifying alias for the organization which performed the verification – Notification of events which can be achieved by subscribing to a contract Overall, technical specifics are lacking from the project description. Code examples of smart contracts which will be utilized would be beneficial.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a section towards the end of the whitepaper the discusses the risk factors associated with the platform and the token sale. Additionally, there is a document that outlines the terms and conditions of the of the token sale, which is fairly comprehensive and professionally written.

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.

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.
Documentation Score:
3.2

Product

Differentiation: On a technical level, the solution is fairly simplistic. However, the implementation of the technology is being used in a manner that makes sense and has practical use. There are little to no blockchain-focused competitors that have the same goals as BBH and the dutyof.care platform.

Readiness: It is stated that since February 2018, an invitation-only private beta has been available for a “carefully selected” group of organizations from human and community services sector. Descriptions of some of the organizations involved with the private beta are listed (but not specifically named). A prototype was developed in September 2017 and is publicly available on GitHub.

Concreteness of Development Plans: Achievements to date are presented in the whitepaper as follows: – Establish the foundational elements of the functional model and roadmap – Engaged a focus group of organisations who are wrestling with these obligations to act as a sounding board, advisory group, and when ready a pilot group – Established a backlog of stories and user journeys to progress the functional delivery – Established a set of MVP capabilities to take to market – Established the foundation elements of the infrastructure platform (currently finalizing for Production deployment) – Established a draft of the expected operating model – Commenced build of the stories (functionality) in iterative, agile sprints. Currently, we are nearing MVP completion. – Go-to-market strategy, marketing and branding – Created Social Media footprint – Soft launch of the product (pre-registrations) held at the annual CEO’s National Disability Services conference in Sydney, in late 2017 Product functionality development plans are presented as follows: – Help organisations by enabling a dashboard of the readiness to provide services to vulnerable people – Therefore, organisations need to be registered – Users need to administer those organisations, with an immutable audit history of who was given what permissions, when, and by whom – Accreditations needs to be established and captured for individuals as members, or constituents of those organisations – A “proof of life” style check will be required for each constituent who will provide services to vulnerable people – Accreditations need to be verified (some will be possible automatically, once initially sighted) to ensure they continue to be valid – Our application will capture and maintain a collection of auditable events, including organisation and user management and changes. Future development plans are presented as follows: – Enabling a card scanning facility from a mobile phone. – Allowing individuals to login and manage their accreditations – Grow the movement of VDOC Tokens associated with actions in dutyof.care. This will promote the dutyof.care economy and incentivise organisations to see and track the VDOC they have accrued -Allow organisations to pick the frequency of automated checking of accreditations to help control their subscription fees – Expand the accreditation types available to include broader training certificate tracking and expiry dates (these can’t be revoked – so are an easier, more pervasive kind of accreditation). – Expand the API integration to other companion or complementary systems to enable a more seamless on-boarding process for staff in organisations. This might include: Integration via web hooks/API from HR systems to automatically notify dutyof.care when a new staff member or volunteer is added to the organisations key HR system – Authentication to enable Seamless if not Single Sign On – Streamlining on-boarding by allowing migration from existing incident management systems into dutyof.care. Examples may include CRIS which is used in Victoria The goals presented are fairly descriptive. Overall development plans are included in the roadmaps. However, timelines are not included.

Current Position within Roadmap: Milestones reached thus far not particularly notable. There is much technical development that needs to be done. There is currently no publicly available content to assess state of development.

Feasibility: At a technological level, the goals of the platform are fairly straightforward and quite feasible: BBH plans to leverage blockchain technology in order to create a public ledger which can be used to assess the legitimacy of accreditations. On a regulatory level, the platform will face some friction with regards to privacy laws.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform will simply use the Ethereum blockchain to develop a public ledger. Elaborate smart contract development is not required for the platform to operate. As a result, the project does is not innovative with respect to blockchain technology.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Product (including core components) in proof of concept or limited testing phase only.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.8

Market

Target User Base: Initially, the platform will target Australian organizations and expand globally. It is stated that organizations that may be served by the dutyof.care platform are any organizations that are trusted with the care of vulnerable people (including non-profit and private sector operators in disabilities, education and para-education, aged care, community groups, sporting clubs, and a broad array of other organizations). In the whitepaper, it is found that the (conservative) estimate for the addressable market in Australia is 10,000-15,000 organizations and 5,000,000 individuals, with an millions of credentials re-validated weekly to annually. Overall, the target user base is somewhat niche, but still has a wide reach (every school,kindergarten, playgroup, church, sporting club, adventure and member organisations like Scouts, Guides, martial arts, hospitals, dance schools and music schools with a mix of paid employees and volunteers).

Market Penetration Potential: Current solutions are difficult to use and cumbersome. A thorough discussion on the problems associated with existing solutions is included in the whitepaper. The platform is able to provide a much more simple (and secure) method of verifying accreditations. Thus, the ability to reach widespread adoption is possible.

Direct Competition: Current competitors are discussed with moderate detail. Overall, BBH claims that there a small number of parties present in the market, but “have vulnerabilities and limitations that indicate they aren’t solving this need as completely as is required to achieve the outcome for organisations and ultimately vulnerable people”. Two specific competing solutions are Everproof (formerly BlueQ) and Safety Management Online (SMO).

Solution Advantage: When compared to Everproof, it is stated that the “implementation falls short in helping organisations with weaknesses in the validation points used to ensure people are who they say they are and possess accreditations themselves as opposed to possibly being able to use the accreditations of significant others”. With regards to SMO, it is believed that the organization is not “not being actively expanded in its functionality and we consider that it does not offer a modern, web-based user experience”. Overall, dutyof.care’s solution aims to effectively verify identification while providing an easy to use (web-based) interface.

Blockchain Disruption: Existing solutions are significantly obsolete. There is a lack of adequate tools available. For example, it is discussed in the whitepaper that some methods of proof of compliance require the submission of an un-editable PDF document. The use of blockchain technology allows for verification to take place efficiently, while ensuring privacy.

Long-Term Vision: The project began as a passion project. The organizations aims to expand the reach of the platform and help organizations serve vulnerable people on a global scale. It is stated that many of the team members have had personal experiences with the inefficiencies of the system.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
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.

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any direct competition (e.g., hard to find, or solution is highly advanced). Blockchain solutions still rare in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.
Market Score:
4.0

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Blue Bike Solutions (BBS) was established in 2009 and Blue Bike Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 611 782 882) (BBH) was launched in 2016. BBH has been “incubating this concept and how to take the right solution to market, since 2016”.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 8 core team members (4 individuals form the tech leadership team and the 4 team members have skills that align with business development) presented on the website along with 3 advisors and 8 individuals in an “industry focus group”. It is not clear if the team is looking to expand.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All and core team members provide links to LinkedIn profiles (only 4 provide bio descriptions). The product lead and the DevOps lead also include links to the GitHub page (the product lead has minimal activity whereas the DevOps lead is very active). Three core team members do not indicate affiliation with dutyof.care on their LinkedIn profiles (all core team members indicate affiliation with BBS).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: It is not evident that the technology-focused team members has had prior experience developing smart contracts of have worked on blockchain-focused projects. However, the project does not seem to require a high level of technical prowess.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The solution does not seem to require a highly technical team to accomplish. Nevertheless, the lead team members seem to have a fairly technical background. The CEO has worked as a senior consultant at IBM, and was a manager at Accenture. He has a background in as project leader and data warehousing.

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

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Use cases of VOC tokens are described fairly thoroughly (approximately one page of written content). In short, users user VOC tokens in exchange for various activities in the ecosystem, including: – Verifying a person’s accreditation – Re-asserting accreditations – Integration from HR (and other) systems through web hooks – Authentication of users with an organisations’ credentials – Reporting on the dashboard, managing users, groups and other functionality to facilitate the above However, it should be noted that VDOC tokens give a discount to the pay-per-use fees as opposed to providing exclusive access to services.

Token Economy: Total supply: 100,000,000 VDOC VDOC is an ERC20 compliant token.It is stated that VDOC tokens are used to “incentivise and reward behaviors which promote the usage and expanding the user base of the dutyof.care platform”. Transaction fees are reduced with the use of VDOC tokens.

System Decentralization (besides token): At its initial stages of development, dutyof.care will be semi-decentralized with BBH operating the oracle service for dutyof.care platform. BBH will ensure that information written to the public ledger will be “accurate and has complete integrity”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): 

  • Total supply: unspecified
  • Soft cap: unspecified
  • Hard cap: unspecified

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is described qualitatively as follows: Short term calendar 2018, with focus on: – Covering the costs of the development and marketing of the platform for the functional groupings through MVP (due December 2017) through the key incremental functionality expansion – Supporting establishment of the business and team to operationally manage the platform – Holding reserves to supporting ongoing operational considerations include Gas and hosting fees Longer term 2019 and beyond: – Extra funds will keep supporting the continued functional expansion of the product with richer integration and more comprehensive processes in and around the compliance space – Fund the expansion into other sectors and geographic markets (should be Australian national from the start) – Fund the ongoing operational usage of the platform to seek to lower the costs for organisations to use the platform to demonstrate compliance In addition to the development costs above, there will be: – a reserve of VDOC, ETH and AUD to cover the platform operational costs – a reserve to support the allocation to the organisations that sign up with rewards bonuses and usage “credits” – support the “no cost” provision of the platform to dutyof.care platform users for a period Overall, without quantitative details with respect to the use of proceeds, the information presented lacks clarity.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the website as follows: 12% – Pre-launch + bonus 68% – Main sale 15% – Foundation 5% – Core team Vesting periods are not clearly outlined. The purpose for each allocation is outlined in the document: Pre-launch + bonus – Support for beta, and promotion of Token Sale (includes pre-sale bonus) Main sale – Fundraising for accelerated platform and business development Foundation – Rewards, incentives and long-term sustainability of VDOC Core team – Retention, attraction and rewards to help ensure a great platform.

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Token Economics Score:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website