Helix3

Rewards-Based Platform to Store, Manage & Exchange Health Data.

About Helix3

Helix3 is a platform that encourages users to complete challenges or milestones in exchange for tokens that can be used for healthcare services or products sold on the Helix3 platform. Milestones can be sponsored by government programs, employers, PCPs, insurance companies, merchants, marketplace participants, or an individual themselves. FitFlow is the platform’s goal achievement system. HLX tokens give access to the platform and are used as a means of exchange for healthcare products and services.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

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

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

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is thoroughly discussed with adequate market research is presented with proper citation. The roles of different participants on the platform are discussed. Technical content is provided. The use of blockchain dependencies are briefly discussed. The business model is presented but lacks detail. The revenue model is uncertain. The team shown on the company website. The company GitHub page is publicly available. Legal content is provided in the whitepaper.

Readability: The document is simple to read and organized fairly well.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not clearly discussed. Challenges that the organization faces or will face in the future are not included in the whitepaper. Discussion regarding potential competitors is lacking.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: There will be a premium version of the application which will utilize a subscription-based business model. FitFlow providers can offer discounts and trials for products/services. Similar to Groupon, merchants will be able offer to offer one-time purchases for services/products at a discount to gain the opportunity to earn the clients business. It is stated that transaction fees will create revenue for the Helix3 platform, but specific details are not provided.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There are three main components of the platform: the Helix3 Blockchain Sync Server (acts as the bridge between the blockchain and the various participants on the network), IEGN (a hardware device for data collection), and Helix3 Cortex (various specialized APIs).
Specific details are often not presented sufficiently. For example, it is stated that “data is collected from existing EMR/HIM systems using (HL7 standards), IoT medical/fitness devices and manual input of a validated user” and that the IEGN will utilize IOTA. Further details with regards to data collection and storage is limited. Data storage will utilize BigchainDB and IPFS, but further details are not disclosed. The majority of the document discusses the features of the platform (and what technologies will be used) as opposed to the implementation of the technology and development strategies/technical considerations.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief legal disclaimer that spans approximately a half-page in the beginning of the whitepaper. Legal content also is provided towards the end of the whitepaper. Risk factors are discussed and disclaimers which pertain to the platform and the token sale. It is stated that “the participants in the Helix3 TGE acknowledges and accepts that the Helix3 token offering operation is taking place within a U.S legal environment that is still under development”.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some; has a certain edge or angle.
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?

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

Product

Differentiation: Users will develop a digital twin, “Helix Twin”, which will allow users to “take their health and wellness data with them when they travel”. Wellness programs and health service providers are able to set challenges in order to give users the opportunity to earn HLX tokens. Users can exchange HLX tokens for healthcare services/products such as “massages, fit devices, fitness club memberships, race entrance fees, chiropractic assessments”.

Readiness: Based on the roadmap presented on the company website, it is stated that the organization has developed a prototype. However, the details of the prototype are absent. The company GitHub page only contains repositories for the token smart contracts and the whitepaper.

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

Feb 2017
– Through industry experience, we analyzed several challenges in the healthcare space today
– Decided to figure out ho existing technologies could make more of an impact for the future of healthcare
Mar 2017
– Envisioned a globally decentralized platform that could securely store and manage health data in a meaningful way
Apr 2017
– Create version 0.1 of our white paper and set to create a prototype
May 2017
– Mapped out the backend components and began front end development
– Conceptualized a rewards based system that gathered data from fitness devices
– Released version 0.5 of the whitepaper
Aug 2017
– Built a basic prototype and continued to improve the UI/UX design
– Helix Cortex integration framework was planned out
– Planned trips to attend blockchain/health conferences to gain validation
Sept to Dec 2017
– Attended blockchain events in Amsterdam, Ireland, New York, and Boston
– Networked with people in the industry and gained positive feedback and further validation
– Added new members and advisors to the team
Jan to Mar 2018
– Meeting with private accredited investors to secure an early convertible debt or SAFT round in order to advance our efforts with Helix
Apr to Dec 2018
– Token distribution event
– Bring Phase 1 “digital twin” to a select market
– Build partnerships and continue integrating with new fitness/medical devices
– Marketplace launch
2019 to 2020
– Enterprise wellness commercial application launch
– Phase 3 integrations and modules roll out

Most milestones are related to the conceptualization of various aspects of the product as opposed to concrete technical of business developments. Milestones are presented with sufficient information in order to avoid misleading the reader. Specific technical development focused milestones are lacking.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most of the developments achieved thus far seem to be primarily conceptual and business-related as technology focused. It is stated in the roadmap that the organization has developed a prototype, but the details of the prototype are not discussed in the whitepaper or the website.

Feasiblity: When considering the lack of publicly viewable content that would give an indication of the organization’s current stage of development, the ability for the organization to reach its milestones set out in the road map (such as the development of Phase 1: digital twin) seems ambitious. The goals of the platform based on the information presented in the whitepaper do not seem to align with the milestones set out in the roadmap: there is a lack of technology focused milestones.

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

 

Product Company and Team

Market

2.2
Market
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
Direct Competition

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

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)?

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

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

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

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

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

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are those that would like to complete challenges in exchange for healthcare-related services and products, as well as the corresponding merchants. Additionally, healthcare professionals would also benefit from the platform.

Market Penetration Potential: The potential to gain considerable hold of the market based seems unlikely based on the fact that critical aspects of the platform are not discussed adequately in the whitepaper. For instance, it is stated that third party verifiers (a reception desk at a gym, or the check-in station at a 5k race) would be used to assess whether challenges are completed, but the details regarding the eligibility requirements of verifiers or the mechanism which will keep verifiers from making fraudulent confirmations is not discussed.

Direct Competition: Competitors are not specifically discussed in the whitepaper. However, there are a number of blockchain-focused projects that aim to incentivize user action for the betterment of health with the use of cryptocurrency. Potential competitors include (but are not limited to):

– Clinicoin
– Healthereum
– MintHealth
– Lympo

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are somewhat indeterminate. There is potential for the organization to differentiate itself from its competitor with the hardware wallet, but specific details of the implementation are not disclosed.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, the potential to disrupt the healthcare industry is moderate. The ability to direct user action via cryptocurrency for the benefit of their health has some advantages when compared to other reward mechanisms, but the impact is not particularly revolutionary. The development of a digital twin which users will be able to simply and securely exchange health information has clear advantages, but the information presented in the whitepaper seems to focus on the reward mechanism of FitFlow, as opposed to the digital twin.

Long-Term Vision: Based on milestones set out in the roadmap, it appears that the organization is still conceptualizing the platform and specific details with regards to future development is lacking. The viability of the project is uncertain due to the lack of information provided in the whitepaper.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.0
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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: According to the company’s LinkedIn page, Helix3 Technologies, Inc has their headquarters located in Boston, MA and was founded in 2017. Details regarding investment funding toward the company is not evident.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 7 individuals is presented on the company website along with 8 advisors.

The team structure is outlined as follows:

Nicholas White | CEO
Ray Belleville | CSO
Brittney White | VP Operations
Nick Sawchuk | VP Business Development
Cody Pratt | Marketing Manager
Tyler Armstrong | Social Marketing
Bethany Suarez | Content Marketing & PR
Stephen Chiricosta | Business Advisor
Kirti A. Patel, MD | Medical Advisor
Abhishek Punia | Crypto Analyst Draper Associates Advisor
Tim Wigle | Science & Technology Advisor
Bill Petersen | Corporate Rewards Expert & Advisor
Michael Cronin | Business Advisor
Arden O’Connor | Business Advisor
Sean Baggett | Security Advisor

It seems as though most lead team members migrated from NetBrain Technologies Inc (network mapping software). Two of the core team members are concurrently involved with NetBrain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All team members provide links to their LinkedIn profiles. For some reason, the individual responsible for Content Marketing & PR does not provide a profile picture for either the company website or their LinkedIn profile. Bio descriptions are not provided on the company website. All LinkedIn profiles some details regarding previous work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most lead team members have previous experience working with technology companies. However, the relation with the nature of the projectis not evident.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): When assessing the team structure, it can be seen that there is a significant lack of technical positions. Although some team members have a technical background, there is a lack of individuals on the team that are responsible for technical development. There is a lack of individuals that have experience with blockchain development.

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

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

1.7
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized without due consideration of the broader issue.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: HLX tokens are used for platform’s reward mechanism and are used to purchase services/products. It is stated that premium features can be unlocked using HLX tokens. Specific details with regards to the premium features are lacking. The value proposition of the token is fairly weak.

Token Economy: Total supply: 888,000,000 HLX

Token use cases are vaguely discussed and the specific fee structure for various aspects of the platform are not specifically outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that “Helix3 enables the government to get permission-based access to valuable healthcare data. This will help the government with regulation and provide a more efficient healthcare system overall”. The governance structure of the organization is not specifically outlined. Decentralization does not seem to be the focus of the project.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $3.5MM USD
Hard cap: $31MM USD

The fundraising goals seem unrelated to development plans. There is not enough information presented in the whitepaper to justify the fairly high hard cap.

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

50% – Development
25% – Marketing
10% – Operations
10% – Sales and partnerships
5% – Legal

Further details with regards to how funds will be used are not included.

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

45% – TGE Participants
16% – Community and Ecosystem Stimulation
14% – FitFlow Providers and Sponsors
10% – Advisors
10% – FoundingTeam
5% – Early Contributors

Vesting periods are not outlined. It is uncertain whether unsold tokens will be burned. The tokens allocated to “Community and Ecosystem Stimulation” is not adequately described.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is thoroughly discussed with adequate market research is presented with proper citation. The roles of different participants on the platform are discussed. Technical content is provided. The use of blockchain dependencies are briefly discussed. The business model is presented but lacks detail. The revenue model is uncertain. The team shown on the company website. The company GitHub page is publicly available. Legal content is provided in the whitepaper.

Readability: The document is simple to read and organized fairly well.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not clearly discussed. Challenges that the organization faces or will face in the future are not included in the whitepaper. Discussion regarding potential competitors is lacking.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: There will be a premium version of the application which will utilize a subscription-based business model. FitFlow providers can offer discounts and trials for products/services. Similar to Groupon, merchants will be able offer to offer one-time purchases for services/products at a discount to gain the opportunity to earn the clients business. It is stated that transaction fees will create revenue for the Helix3 platform, but specific details are not provided.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There are three main components of the platform: the Helix3 Blockchain Sync Server (acts as the bridge between the blockchain and the various participants on the network), IEGN (a hardware device for data collection), and Helix3 Cortex (various specialized APIs).
Specific details are often not presented sufficiently. For example, it is stated that “data is collected from existing EMR/HIM systems using (HL7 standards), IoT medical/fitness devices and manual input of a validated user” and that the IEGN will utilize IOTA. Further details with regards to data collection and storage is limited. Data storage will utilize BigchainDB and IPFS, but further details are not disclosed. The majority of the document discusses the features of the platform (and what technologies will be used) as opposed to the implementation of the technology and development strategies/technical considerations.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief legal disclaimer that spans approximately a half-page in the beginning of the whitepaper. Legal content also is provided towards the end of the whitepaper. Risk factors are discussed and disclaimers which pertain to the platform and the token sale. It is stated that “the participants in the Helix3 TGE acknowledges and accepts that the Helix3 token offering operation is taking place within a U.S legal environment that is still under development”.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

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

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

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
3.3

Product

Differentiation: Users will develop a digital twin, “Helix Twin”, which will allow users to “take their health and wellness data with them when they travel”. Wellness programs and health service providers are able to set challenges in order to give users the opportunity to earn HLX tokens. Users can exchange HLX tokens for healthcare services/products such as “massages, fit devices, fitness club memberships, race entrance fees, chiropractic assessments”.

Readiness: Based on the roadmap presented on the company website, it is stated that the organization has developed a prototype. However, the details of the prototype are absent. The company GitHub page only contains repositories for the token smart contracts and the whitepaper.

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

Feb 2017
– Through industry experience, we analyzed several challenges in the healthcare space today
– Decided to figure out ho existing technologies could make more of an impact for the future of healthcare
Mar 2017
– Envisioned a globally decentralized platform that could securely store and manage health data in a meaningful way
Apr 2017
– Create version 0.1 of our white paper and set to create a prototype
May 2017
– Mapped out the backend components and began front end development
– Conceptualized a rewards based system that gathered data from fitness devices
– Released version 0.5 of the whitepaper
Aug 2017
– Built a basic prototype and continued to improve the UI/UX design
– Helix Cortex integration framework was planned out
– Planned trips to attend blockchain/health conferences to gain validation
Sept to Dec 2017
– Attended blockchain events in Amsterdam, Ireland, New York, and Boston
– Networked with people in the industry and gained positive feedback and further validation
– Added new members and advisors to the team
Jan to Mar 2018
– Meeting with private accredited investors to secure an early convertible debt or SAFT round in order to advance our efforts with Helix
Apr to Dec 2018
– Token distribution event
– Bring Phase 1 “digital twin” to a select market
– Build partnerships and continue integrating with new fitness/medical devices
– Marketplace launch
2019 to 2020
– Enterprise wellness commercial application launch
– Phase 3 integrations and modules roll out

Most milestones are related to the conceptualization of various aspects of the product as opposed to concrete technical of business developments. Milestones are presented with sufficient information in order to avoid misleading the reader. Specific technical development focused milestones are lacking.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most of the developments achieved thus far seem to be primarily conceptual and business-related as technology focused. It is stated in the roadmap that the organization has developed a prototype, but the details of the prototype are not discussed in the whitepaper or the website.

Feasiblity: When considering the lack of publicly viewable content that would give an indication of the organization’s current stage of development, the ability for the organization to reach its milestones set out in the road map (such as the development of Phase 1: digital twin) seems ambitious. The goals of the platform based on the information presented in the whitepaper do not seem to align with the milestones set out in the roadmap: there is a lack of technology focused milestones.

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

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Some; has a certain edge or angle.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
2.2

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are those that would like to complete challenges in exchange for healthcare-related services and products, as well as the corresponding merchants. Additionally, healthcare professionals would also benefit from the platform.

Market Penetration Potential: The potential to gain considerable hold of the market based seems unlikely based on the fact that critical aspects of the platform are not discussed adequately in the whitepaper. For instance, it is stated that third party verifiers (a reception desk at a gym, or the check-in station at a 5k race) would be used to assess whether challenges are completed, but the details regarding the eligibility requirements of verifiers or the mechanism which will keep verifiers from making fraudulent confirmations is not discussed.

Direct Competition: Competitors are not specifically discussed in the whitepaper. However, there are a number of blockchain-focused projects that aim to incentivize user action for the betterment of health with the use of cryptocurrency. Potential competitors include (but are not limited to):

– Clinicoin
– Healthereum
– MintHealth
– Lympo

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are somewhat indeterminate. There is potential for the organization to differentiate itself from its competitor with the hardware wallet, but specific details of the implementation are not disclosed.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, the potential to disrupt the healthcare industry is moderate. The ability to direct user action via cryptocurrency for the benefit of their health has some advantages when compared to other reward mechanisms, but the impact is not particularly revolutionary. The development of a digital twin which users will be able to simply and securely exchange health information has clear advantages, but the information presented in the whitepaper seems to focus on the reward mechanism of FitFlow, as opposed to the digital twin.

Long-Term Vision: Based on milestones set out in the roadmap, it appears that the organization is still conceptualizing the platform and specific details with regards to future development is lacking. The viability of the project is uncertain due to the lack of information provided in the whitepaper.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
Direct Competition

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

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)?

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.
Market Score:
2.2

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: According to the company’s LinkedIn page, Helix3 Technologies, Inc has their headquarters located in Boston, MA and was founded in 2017. Details regarding investment funding toward the company is not evident.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 7 individuals is presented on the company website along with 8 advisors.

The team structure is outlined as follows:

Nicholas White | CEO
Ray Belleville | CSO
Brittney White | VP Operations
Nick Sawchuk | VP Business Development
Cody Pratt | Marketing Manager
Tyler Armstrong | Social Marketing
Bethany Suarez | Content Marketing & PR
Stephen Chiricosta | Business Advisor
Kirti A. Patel, MD | Medical Advisor
Abhishek Punia | Crypto Analyst Draper Associates Advisor
Tim Wigle | Science & Technology Advisor
Bill Petersen | Corporate Rewards Expert & Advisor
Michael Cronin | Business Advisor
Arden O’Connor | Business Advisor
Sean Baggett | Security Advisor

It seems as though most lead team members migrated from NetBrain Technologies Inc (network mapping software). Two of the core team members are concurrently involved with NetBrain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All team members provide links to their LinkedIn profiles. For some reason, the individual responsible for Content Marketing & PR does not provide a profile picture for either the company website or their LinkedIn profile. Bio descriptions are not provided on the company website. All LinkedIn profiles some details regarding previous work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most lead team members have previous experience working with technology companies. However, the relation with the nature of the projectis not evident.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): When assessing the team structure, it can be seen that there is a significant lack of technical positions. Although some team members have a technical background, there is a lack of individuals on the team that are responsible for technical development. There is a lack of individuals that have experience with blockchain development.

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

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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:
2.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: HLX tokens are used for platform’s reward mechanism and are used to purchase services/products. It is stated that premium features can be unlocked using HLX tokens. Specific details with regards to the premium features are lacking. The value proposition of the token is fairly weak.

Token Economy: Total supply: 888,000,000 HLX

Token use cases are vaguely discussed and the specific fee structure for various aspects of the platform are not specifically outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that “Helix3 enables the government to get permission-based access to valuable healthcare data. This will help the government with regulation and provide a more efficient healthcare system overall”. The governance structure of the organization is not specifically outlined. Decentralization does not seem to be the focus of the project.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $3.5MM USD
Hard cap: $31MM USD

The fundraising goals seem unrelated to development plans. There is not enough information presented in the whitepaper to justify the fairly high hard cap.

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

50% – Development
25% – Marketing
10% – Operations
10% – Sales and partnerships
5% – Legal

Further details with regards to how funds will be used are not included.

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

45% – TGE Participants
16% – Community and Ecosystem Stimulation
14% – FitFlow Providers and Sponsors
10% – Advisors
10% – FoundingTeam
5% – Early Contributors

Vesting periods are not outlined. It is uncertain whether unsold tokens will be burned. The tokens allocated to “Community and Ecosystem Stimulation” is not adequately described.

 

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized without due consideration of the broader issue.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
1.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website