Hashrental

HashRental marketplace connects sellers (miners) of hashing power with buyers of hashing power through smart contracts, decentralized Escrow.

About Hashrental

HashRental is a service and marketplace for exchanging hashing power. Users that purchase and trade hashing power on the marketplace using LUHN tokens receive a discount. A LUHN token represents the current weighted average profit from mining altcoins for each algorithm (per hour).

Token Economics Product

Documentation

1.8
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.

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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 whitepaper is quite brief. Information regarding the team is not included in the whitepaper and little information is presented on the website. With respect to the technical aspects of the platform, there are low levels of content provided (no discussion on the infrastructure of the platform, smart contracts, etc). Reward calculations are included in the document. The business-related aspects of the platform are also lacking. Market research is done poorly and discussion regarding the business development plan is absent. Links to publicly available GitHub repositories are absent.

Readability: The whitepaper contains a fair amount of grammatical errors. Discussion regarding reward calculations could be condensed to improve readability of the document.

Transparency: There is a lack of transparency with the current state of development with the platform. A GitHub page is not publicly accessible and the functionality of the MVP is uncertain. The platform has yet to be launched but it is stated that MVP participants have already received a payout which totals $544,000. The terms in which users were able receive payment without a fully functional platform is uncertain. Information regarding the team members is also lacking.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan presentation presented in the whitepaper is fairly weak. Market research is somewhat misguided as it projects electricity usage based on the current rate of electricity consumption via cryptocurrency mining, as opposed to an evaluation of the future development of consensus protocols as it progresses away from proof-of-work to more energy efficient means. Additionally, information regarding the business development plans (marketing, growth, etc) of the platform is absent from the whitepaper.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Reward calculations are included, but there is little information presented with regards to how to platform operates on a technical level.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal discussion is fairly minimal with respect to the whitepaper. However, there is a document provided on the website that outlines the terms and conditions of LUHN tokens and the platform. Residents from the following jurisdictions (along with those that are subject to country/territory wide sanctions) are not permitted to participate in the token sale: United States of America, Republic of China, South Korea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the Crimea region.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.5
Product
Differentiation

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

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: The platform differentiates itself from other mining pools by creating a marketplace for users to buy and sell hash power. Compared to marketplaces such as those from NiceHash, HashRental aims to make their marketplace decentralized by developing an escrow service and by using smart contracts with LUHN tokens.

Readiness: It is stated that the that the system has been launched and that $544,000 has been paid to MVP participants. However, the functionality of the MVP is questionable. On the website, the MVP consists of links to PDF documents and a Google Forms. A figure on the website presents the different features that have been deployed and which features are currently in development.

It is stated that the following aspects of the platform have been deployed:
– HashRental mining system
– redirecting mining system
– LUHN token smart system
– payments smart system

The following are still in progress:
– interface
– hashing power smart system
– hashing power auto distribution
– management smart system

Features are not described with adequate detail.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the website as follows:

July 2017
– Market research
– Hashing power marketplace concept development
August 2017
– Development of the platform’s architecture
September 2017
– Product MVP development
– Mining rigs power-sharing
– Services launched
– Payments to MVP customers
December 2017
– Decentralized marketplace concept development
– Company registration
January 2018
– Development of the redirecting mining system
– Website development
February 2018
– Prepare for ICO
– Smart contracts development
April 2018
– Token sale
– Interface development
June 2018
– LUHN coin public exchange listing
– Wallet launch
– Upgrade servers (UK)
– Servers collocation in US & Tokyo
– Launching HashRental marketplace (system release version)
– Start acceptive tokens for hashing power (rent)
– Start marketing company (A)
August 2018
– Hashing power smart system development
– Hashing power auto distribution system development
– Hong Kong – Fast proxy via private link
October 2018
– Develop “Smart Miner” for customers (user-friendly software)
November 2018
– LUHN coin public new exchange listing
December 2018
– Launching management smart system on HashRental platform
January 2019
– Launching of full-service HashRental marketplace
– Start marketing company (B)

Major milestones are presented. Some milestones are somewhat vague. For example, the description of the MVP developed by the organization is described with low levels of detail and it is uncertain what is meant by some milestones such as the development of the “hashing power smart system”.

Current Position within Roadmap: Concrete developments towards to the platform (that are publicly available) thus far have primarily been focused on the conceptualization of various parts of the platform. An MVP is being developed (the functionality of the MVP is significantly lacking).

Feasiblity: The development of the MVP began in September 2017 and it still has very limited functionality, thus the goal to have a functional platform by January 2019 is somewhat ambitious, especially considering that the team seems to lack commitment to the project.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide value to other projects with regards to blockchain technology. The team is simply developing smart contracts in order to manage hash power and direct payments.

 

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Tiny or indeterminate.
Market Penetration Potential

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

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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.)

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

Market

Target User Base: Considering that the proportion of individuals that are involved with cryptocurrency is already significantly small (on a global scale), further reducing the target user base to individuals that want to get involved with contributing/renting hash power leaves the target demographic of the platform to be significantly limited.

Market Penetration Potential: The demand for a crypto-mining marketplace is uncertain due to the future development of consensus protocols. Although, for the time being, there is value with providing a decentralized marketplace for hash power as opposed to one which is centralized, such as NiceHash.

Direct Competition: Competitors discussed in the whitepaper include NiceHash and MiningRigRentals. Other competitors include:

– MinerGate
– HashWiz
– WinMiner
– Kryptex

Solution Advantage: The strongest competitive advantage of the platform is that the platform is decentralized. Otherwise, the advantages of the platform is not evident.

Blockchain Disruption: The implementation of smart contracts in order to create a decentralized marketplace has potential for creating a notable advantage compared to similar platforms.

Long-Term Vision: The overall purpose of the platform is to attempt to alleviate current issues with mining cryptocurrency. As more cryptocurrencies move to a more energy efficient consensus protocol, the platform will struggle to remain useful to users.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

1.3
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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
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..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
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: In the whitepaper, it is stated that the company is located in The Isle of Man. Information regarding HashRental as an organization is not easily accessible. It is not clear if the company has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Information on the team can be found through the organization’s website (not available via the whitepaper). There are 10 team members presented and no advisors. There are four individuals with “Blockchain Developer” included in their job title.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Social media profiles are provided for team members via the HashRental website. When investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the all team members, there is minimal information presented. Team members show involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Bio descriptions of team members are not provided and there is minimal information presented on team member’s LinkedIn profiles. Thus, relevance of previous experience and skill set is unverifiable.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The skill set of the team is uncertain due to the lack of disclosure on all team member’s LinkedIn profiles.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships are not clearly presented.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.8
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.

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
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: It is stated that LUHN tokens correspond to the price of one hour of hashing power rent, which the minimum amount of hashing power for 1 LUHN token is determined by the average profit from mining altcoins for each algorithm. LUHN tokens are not necessary to access serviced provided by the platform, but provides users with a discount.

Token Economy: Reward calculations are presented with detail. It is stated that the price of LUHN tokens will be assessed based on the average profit from mining altcoins for each algorithm. After January 2019 (when the platform plans to become fully decentralized), the platform will utilize a fee of 0.1%.

System Decentralization (besides token): The main advantage of the platform is that the team intends to develop a decentralized marketplace. As such, all aspects of the final release of the platform seems as though it will be fully decentralized.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 5000 ETH
Hard cap: 49,600 ETH

The soft cap has been reached but the fundraising amounts are not justified and do not seem to align with the development plans of the platform.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

90% – Growth grants
5% – Ongoing governance and legal support
5% – Operational expenses

Growth grants will be be used as follows:
– ?ost and maintenance of the servers Europe, USA, Japan, India & fast proxy to Japan stratum servers in Hong Kong.
– ?osts of marketing advertising campaigns.
– Recruitment of new specialists into the team.
– Platform development.
– Listings to all major exchanges.
– Further expansion of facilities

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

62% – Token sale
25% – Bonus pool and reserve
10% – Founding team (90% will be locked for one-year)
2% – Bounty pool
1% – Token sale legal costs

Unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The whitepaper is quite brief. Information regarding the team is not included in the whitepaper and little information is presented on the website. With respect to the technical aspects of the platform, there are low levels of content provided (no discussion on the infrastructure of the platform, smart contracts, etc). Reward calculations are included in the document. The business-related aspects of the platform are also lacking. Market research is done poorly and discussion regarding the business development plan is absent. Links to publicly available GitHub repositories are absent.

Readability: The whitepaper contains a fair amount of grammatical errors. Discussion regarding reward calculations could be condensed to improve readability of the document.

Transparency: There is a lack of transparency with the current state of development with the platform. A GitHub page is not publicly accessible and the functionality of the MVP is uncertain. The platform has yet to be launched but it is stated that MVP participants have already received a payout which totals $544,000. The terms in which users were able receive payment without a fully functional platform is uncertain. Information regarding the team members is also lacking.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan presentation presented in the whitepaper is fairly weak. Market research is somewhat misguided as it projects electricity usage based on the current rate of electricity consumption via cryptocurrency mining, as opposed to an evaluation of the future development of consensus protocols as it progresses away from proof-of-work to more energy efficient means. Additionally, information regarding the business development plans (marketing, growth, etc) of the platform is absent from the whitepaper.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Reward calculations are included, but there is little information presented with regards to how to platform operates on a technical level.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal discussion is fairly minimal with respect to the whitepaper. However, there is a document provided on the website that outlines the terms and conditions of LUHN tokens and the platform. Residents from the following jurisdictions (along with those that are subject to country/territory wide sanctions) are not permitted to participate in the token sale: United States of America, Republic of China, South Korea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the Crimea region.

 

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.

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

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:
1.8

Product

Differentiation: The platform differentiates itself from other mining pools by creating a marketplace for users to buy and sell hash power. Compared to marketplaces such as those from NiceHash, HashRental aims to make their marketplace decentralized by developing an escrow service and by using smart contracts with LUHN tokens.

Readiness: It is stated that the that the system has been launched and that $544,000 has been paid to MVP participants. However, the functionality of the MVP is questionable. On the website, the MVP consists of links to PDF documents and a Google Forms. A figure on the website presents the different features that have been deployed and which features are currently in development.

It is stated that the following aspects of the platform have been deployed:
– HashRental mining system
– redirecting mining system
– LUHN token smart system
– payments smart system

The following are still in progress:
– interface
– hashing power smart system
– hashing power auto distribution
– management smart system

Features are not described with adequate detail.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the website as follows:

July 2017
– Market research
– Hashing power marketplace concept development
August 2017
– Development of the platform’s architecture
September 2017
– Product MVP development
– Mining rigs power-sharing
– Services launched
– Payments to MVP customers
December 2017
– Decentralized marketplace concept development
– Company registration
January 2018
– Development of the redirecting mining system
– Website development
February 2018
– Prepare for ICO
– Smart contracts development
April 2018
– Token sale
– Interface development
June 2018
– LUHN coin public exchange listing
– Wallet launch
– Upgrade servers (UK)
– Servers collocation in US & Tokyo
– Launching HashRental marketplace (system release version)
– Start acceptive tokens for hashing power (rent)
– Start marketing company (A)
August 2018
– Hashing power smart system development
– Hashing power auto distribution system development
– Hong Kong – Fast proxy via private link
October 2018
– Develop “Smart Miner” for customers (user-friendly software)
November 2018
– LUHN coin public new exchange listing
December 2018
– Launching management smart system on HashRental platform
January 2019
– Launching of full-service HashRental marketplace
– Start marketing company (B)

Major milestones are presented. Some milestones are somewhat vague. For example, the description of the MVP developed by the organization is described with low levels of detail and it is uncertain what is meant by some milestones such as the development of the “hashing power smart system”.

Current Position within Roadmap: Concrete developments towards to the platform (that are publicly available) thus far have primarily been focused on the conceptualization of various parts of the platform. An MVP is being developed (the functionality of the MVP is significantly lacking).

Feasiblity: The development of the MVP began in September 2017 and it still has very limited functionality, thus the goal to have a functional platform by January 2019 is somewhat ambitious, especially considering that the team seems to lack commitment to the project.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide value to other projects with regards to blockchain technology. The team is simply developing smart contracts in order to manage hash power and direct payments.

 

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.5

Market

Target User Base: Considering that the proportion of individuals that are involved with cryptocurrency is already significantly small (on a global scale), further reducing the target user base to individuals that want to get involved with contributing/renting hash power leaves the target demographic of the platform to be significantly limited.

Market Penetration Potential: The demand for a crypto-mining marketplace is uncertain due to the future development of consensus protocols. Although, for the time being, there is value with providing a decentralized marketplace for hash power as opposed to one which is centralized, such as NiceHash.

Direct Competition: Competitors discussed in the whitepaper include NiceHash and MiningRigRentals. Other competitors include:

– MinerGate
– HashWiz
– WinMiner
– Kryptex

Solution Advantage: The strongest competitive advantage of the platform is that the platform is decentralized. Otherwise, the advantages of the platform is not evident.

Blockchain Disruption: The implementation of smart contracts in order to create a decentralized marketplace has potential for creating a notable advantage compared to similar platforms.

Long-Term Vision: The overall purpose of the platform is to attempt to alleviate current issues with mining cryptocurrency. As more cryptocurrencies move to a more energy efficient consensus protocol, the platform will struggle to remain useful to users.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Tiny or indeterminate.
Market Penetration Potential

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

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.
Market Score:
2.7

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: In the whitepaper, it is stated that the company is located in The Isle of Man. Information regarding HashRental as an organization is not easily accessible. It is not clear if the company has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Information on the team can be found through the organization’s website (not available via the whitepaper). There are 10 team members presented and no advisors. There are four individuals with “Blockchain Developer” included in their job title.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Social media profiles are provided for team members via the HashRental website. When investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the all team members, there is minimal information presented. Team members show involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Bio descriptions of team members are not provided and there is minimal information presented on team member’s LinkedIn profiles. Thus, relevance of previous experience and skill set is unverifiable.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The skill set of the team is uncertain due to the lack of disclosure on all team member’s LinkedIn profiles.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships are not clearly presented.

 

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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
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..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
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:
1.3

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: It is stated that LUHN tokens correspond to the price of one hour of hashing power rent, which the minimum amount of hashing power for 1 LUHN token is determined by the average profit from mining altcoins for each algorithm. LUHN tokens are not necessary to access serviced provided by the platform, but provides users with a discount.

Token Economy: Reward calculations are presented with detail. It is stated that the price of LUHN tokens will be assessed based on the average profit from mining altcoins for each algorithm. After January 2019 (when the platform plans to become fully decentralized), the platform will utilize a fee of 0.1%.

System Decentralization (besides token): The main advantage of the platform is that the team intends to develop a decentralized marketplace. As such, all aspects of the final release of the platform seems as though it will be fully decentralized.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 5000 ETH
Hard cap: 49,600 ETH

The soft cap has been reached but the fundraising amounts are not justified and do not seem to align with the development plans of the platform.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

90% – Growth grants
5% – Ongoing governance and legal support
5% – Operational expenses

Growth grants will be be used as follows:
– ?ost and maintenance of the servers Europe, USA, Japan, India & fast proxy to Japan stratum servers in Hong Kong.
– ?osts of marketing advertising campaigns.
– Recruitment of new specialists into the team.
– Platform development.
– Listings to all major exchanges.
– Further expansion of facilities

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

62% – Token sale
25% – Bonus pool and reserve
10% – Founding team (90% will be locked for one-year)
2% – Bounty pool
1% – Token sale legal costs

Unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
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:
2.8
One of the figures shows in the whitepaper shows competitors of HashRental and presents a comparison of the fees for each platform. It is stated that the fees on the HashRental platform will be "low". What are the specific fees associated with using the platform?

From the end of June and until January 2019 amount spent on orders for buying hashing power no fees. After January 2019 (launching of full-services decentralized Hashrental) begin the introduction stage of nodes. Fees for order will be 0.1% and this fees will receive the holders of the nodes (for example in Nicehash this is 3% plus commission for withdrawal) We’ll let go of the marketplace and make it controlled by the community instead.

What altcoins are supported for miners?How was the value of €170 million for the hard cap derived?

Sellers of hashing power get rewards in ETH. Buyers of hashing power can mine altcoins on all major algorithms.

Hard cap includes the cost and maintenance of the servers Europe, USA, Japan, India & fast proxy to Japan stratum servers in Hong Kong, as well as the costs of marketing advertising campaigns, and the recruitment of new specialists into the team.

Is there a publicly available GitHub page?

At this moment only github page of our team member Omkar – https://github.com/abhidian.

What is the current status of the MVP? At the time of review, the MVP was a simply a webpage with links to PDFs and Google Forms. How were clients payed before smart contracts were developed?

MVP stratum ports now closed, because we add “HashRental mining system” to single interface of Hashrental marketplace. Mining will be available soon. And first release Hashrental with accepting LUHN tokens for hashing power rent on smart contracts will be at the end of June. Payments statistic for MVP you can see at ttps://hashrental.io/assets/images/report.pdf.

Please describe the following aspects of the platform with greater (technical) detail and/or provide relevant links to GitHub repositories if possible - HashRental mining system; redirecting mining system; payments smart system; hashing power smart system; hashing power auto distribution; management smart system

The core of the system are smart contracts that combined all parts in a single system. “Redirecting mining system” is responsible for redirecting hashing power from sellers to HashRental smart pools (“HashRental mining system”) or to “Hashing power auto distribution” (establishes needed parameters for selected external pools and monitors execute orders). HashRental system don’t have centralized storage of participants balances. All payments are processed directly through smart contracts. “Management smart system” supervises the activity on launch of contracts:

  • “Payments smart system” – payments from Buyers in LUHN
  • “Hashing power smart system” – payments to Sellers in ETH
What are the future plans for the project as computationally intensive consensus protocols being to be phased out?

Release ver. with tokens will be launching at the end of June, 2018 (decentralized payments and rent processes), and after Jan., 2019 (launching of full-services decentralized Hashrental) begin the introduction stage of nodes.  We’ll let go of the marketplace and make it controlled by the community instead.

How are the fundraising amounts (the soft cap is 5000 ETH and the hard cap is 49,600 ETH) justified?

The soft cap is the capital amount gathered at which the crowdsale event will be considered successful. It is the minimal amount of funds needed and aimed at by the project to proceed as planned. https://hashrental.io/#roadmap.

At the achievement of hardcap, we will be the largest Hashrental Marketplace in the world this year.

What are the costs associated with the "growth grants", which 90% of the proceeds are allocated to?
  • Сost and maintenance of the servers Europe, USA, Japan, India & fast proxy to Japan stratum servers in Hong Kong.
  • Сosts of marketing advertising campaigns.
  • Recruitment of new specialists into the team.
  • Platform development.
  • Listings to all major exchanges.
  • Further expansion of facilities
What is the specific vesting structure for tokens allocated to the founding team?

10% to the founding team, vesting over a 1-year period (90% of team tokens are frozen for one year)

Use this code to share the ratings on your website