idap.io

Introducing Derivatives Product Ecosystem to Crypto Asset Market

About idap.io

idap.io gives users access to cryptocurrency-based Futures, Swaps, and Options. The platform will incorporate its own trading platform and marketplace which offers crypto-to-crypto trading as well as crypto-to-fiat trading, along with margin lending, crypto indices derivatives, and perpetual swaps. IDAP tokens are used to pay transaction fees on the platform.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.0
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.

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Business and token models are well-developed and clearly presented.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The majority of the whitepaper discusses that features of the platform. The problem statement is briefly discussed. Technical aspects of the whitepaper are lacking. The business model and token economics are outlined thoroughly. Team information is provided on the company website as well as the whitepaper. The company GitHub page is provided and contains repositories for token smart contracts and the whitelist. Legal content is available, albeit brief.

Readability: The document is well organized and but takes time to read due to the nature of the project.

Transparency: The current stage of development of the platform is not adequately discussed. There are video demonstrations of the product available on the company website. However, it is uncertain whether or not the product was solely developed for the purposed of this project or whether it was migrated from other projects. The company GitHub page is provided but it only contains token smart contracts and the whitelist.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model of the platform primarily consists of receiving commission from market trades and management fees. Token economics are outlined specifically. The fee structure of the platform is outlined as follows:
COMMISION FEES
Spot trading fee
– 0.05* to 0.10%
Derivative trading fee
– 0.015* to 0.03%
Service fee on P2P Lending
– 7.5* to 15%
ETFs
– No entry fee, 2% exit fee
ICO venture fund
– 2% Management fee

Where (*) indicates fee is only payable with IDAP tokens.

TRADING FEES
IDAP token spot buying fee
– NIL
IDAP token spot selling fee
– 0.05%

It is also stated that 20% of all tokens received from platform fees will be burned until the total token supply is halved from 1 billion to 500 million IDAP. Token allocation is presented with moderate levels of detail.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There is a lack of technical discussion, as most of the document focuses on discussing features of trhe platform. Vague statements regarding technical aspects of the platform which do not provide additional detail are included in the whitepaper. For example, it is stated that the “exchange platform will be hosted on high availability IT infrastructure, thus, enabling fault-tolerant architecture with guaranteed 99.995 percent uptime”. The exchange platform architecture is not discussed at a low level. The exchange itself does not seem to utilize blockchain technology. Instead, the organization intends to utilize a standby exchange with active data replication that will “start as an active exchange, in case the primary exchange goes down due to any reason”.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a very brief section (approximately a half-page in length) towards the end of the whitepaper that outlines legal and regulatory considerations. The majority of the content discusses various licenses that the organization intends to obtain. It is not evident that the organization possesses any notable licenses at the current time and the stage of development with regards to obtaining the licenses that are outlined are not discussed.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.0
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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: The platform aims to provide a marketplace for derivatives for cryptoassets. When compared to traditional solutions, the platform does not provide any features that are particularly novel (with the exception of the use of cryptocurrency). One of the problems that the project aims to solve is that “”trading systems presently available in the crypto landscape are nowhere close to their traditional counterparts””. As such, the trading systems that the organization plans to implement are not unique, and when compared to other blockchain-focused projects for derivative markets, there does not seem to be any standout features. The organization is aiming to primarily implement existing features towards cryptocurrency markets.

Readiness: A series of video demonstrations can be found on the company website. The company GitHub page is provided but does not contain a working prototype of the product. As such, it seems as though the solution is at a testing phase (specific discussion regarding current stage of development is inadequately discussed in the whitepaper).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website is as follows: Q4 2017 – Ideation: Detailed research and analysis on crypto exchanges and product offerings. Q1 2018 – Conceptualization of IDAP ecosystem: Research and design, establish a team, form an advisory board and identify strategic partners. Q2 2018 – IDAP ICO launch and company formation: Website launch, lite paper and white paper release, community building, token listing & sale, company registration in Estonia, license procurement for derivatives trading and asset management, product development. Q3 2018 – IDAP exchange development: Product architecture and front-end development, alpha version testing, banking partnership, derivatives market products testing, API integration testing, community building, token sale and exchange marketing. Q4 2018 – IDAP exchange launch: Beta version testing, web & mobile application trading, derivatives product offering, extended cryptocurrencies and tokens listing, desktop application and ICO venture fund. Q1 2019 – Integration of investment instruments: Investment instruments like ETF, crypto indices and P2P lending will be integrated into the platform. Q2 2019 – ICO incubation: Provide ICO incubation services and implement user feedback driven product improvements. The roadmap presented in the whitepaper has much more milestones and is presented as follows: Q4 2017 to Q1 2018 – Ideation & conceptualization of the IDAP ecosystem – Detailed research and analysis conducted – Core team built – Advisory board formed – Strategic partnerships made Q2 2018 – Website launch and Lite Paper release – White Paper release – Community building – IDAP exchange platform development – Company registration in Estonia – Release of IDAP demo platform – License procurement for derivatives trading and asset management – Public voting for coins/tokens that will be listed on the live exchange – Start of token sale Q3 2018 – Product architecture development and testing – Front-end development – Formation of banking partnerships for fiat integration – Derivatives market products testing – Advanced APIs integration and testing – IDAP Exchange marketing – Alpha release Q4 2018 – Test run of platform features – Beta release of the platform – IDAP Exchange launched, supporting desktop, web & mobile apps – Listing of top voted coins/tokens on IDAP Exchange – Gathering of the ICO Venture Fund Q1 2019 – Integration of extended product offerings – ETF integrated into IDAP platform – P2P lending functionality enabled – Crypto Indices integrated into IDAP platform – Customer feedback collection and analysis Q2 2019 – IDAP’s ICO incubation services launched – New cryptocurrencies added to exchange listing – Evolved, improved and new product offerings based on customer feedback – Integration of live news tracking and analytics tools There are many milestones presented between both roadmaps. There is a sufficient amount of business and technology focused milestones which align with the written content (regarding the development plan) that is in the whitepaper. Adequate detail is provided for most milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has started development of the product and have video demonstrations of various features of the platform available on the company website. Further developments include the development of the exchange with the functionality outlined in the whitepaper.

Feasiblity: Considering that the current stage of technical development is uncertain (technical specifics are not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper and the company GitHub page is limited with regards to content), the feasibility of the organization succeeding with the milestones set out in the roadmaps seem unfavorable. This is further exemplified by the fact that when assessing the milestones presented for Q2 2018 (this review was written in the end June 2018), there is no clear indication that the organization has achieved many of the milestones (license procurement, public voting, release of IDAP demo).

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

Product Company and Team

Market

1.5
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...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly unlikely.
Direct Competition

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
Long-Term Vision

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

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

Market

Target User Base: The platform is targeted towards traders and investors that would like to enter cryptocurrency markets.

Market Penetration Potential: The platform does not provide notable advantages over similar blockchain-focused derivative trading platforms that would indicate that the project will likely gain market dominance, especially considering the lack of legal content that is provided in the whitepaper which may indicate that the organization may face considerable regulatory obstacles as the platform develops.

Direct Competition: There are several blockchain-focused projects that aim to provide users the ability to have access to derivatives trading. Potential competitors include:

– VariabL
– BBOD
– Fortuna
– WandX
– Leverj
– Close Cross
– EverMarkets
– Digitex
– Globitex
– Betex
– LucidExchange
– QUEDEX

Solution Advantage: The platform does not provide considerable advantages when compared to similar platforms. It is explicitly stated that the organization is attempting to implement “legacy trading offerings into the current cryptocurrency market”.

Blockchain Disruption: Cryptocurrency derivative trading has potential for growth, but the introduction of blockchain technology, as described by the solution, has low potential for disruption since blockchain technology is primarily being used to create tokens as a means to generate funds as opposed to using the technology in a manner that would allow for the development of a disruptive product or service.

Long-Term Vision: The platform aims to provide a solution for a gap in the cryptocurrency market, where there is a lack of derivatives trading opportunities for cryptocurrencies. The organization plans to create a competitive product and to gain hold of the market for cryptocurrency derivatives trading.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.0
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)?

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..."]).

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
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 LinkedIn profile, the organization is a privately held company stationed in Tallinn, Harju County and was founded in 2018. It is stated in the whitepaper that IDAP will begin operations in the European Union. It is uncertain whether the organization has received significant investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 8 individuals are presented on the company website along with 11 advisors. The structure of the core team is as follows:

Awanish Rajan | Co-Founder & CEO
Atish Katyal | CFA Co-Founder & CFO
Murali Thakur | Co-Founder & CTO
Anupam Agarwal | Co-Founder & COO
Mukund Thakur | Tech Lead
Ritika Chaturvedi | Operations Manager
Abhishek Crypto | Analyst
Himanshu Tiwari | Blockchain Analyst

When investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the co-founders, it was that none are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects. However the tech lead is concurrently involved with with flipkart.com, an Indian electronic commerce company.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles and bio descriptions are included for all team members on the company website. All links are lead to an existing profile which contains information regarding prior work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: On the bio description of the website, it is stated that the CEO has 12 years of extensive trading experience in trading and crypto markets. When assessing the individual’s LinkedIn profile, it can be seen that that the person only has experience as a retail investor. Most lead team members have work experience that pertains to derivatives trading. Prior work experience for most team members align with the nature of the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There are a lack of individuals that have experience with blockchain technology development. Overall, there seems to be a lack of developers on the team. The skill set of the team is skewed towards finance and business development.

Strategic Partnerships: Partnerships that are listed on the company website are as follows:

– Investing.com
– Stigasoft
– GetSmart
– 3Apples

Notable partnership/launch partners with considerable user bases are not evident.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.7
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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

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?

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: IDAP is an ERC20 token, where ICO contributers that purchase over 20,000 IDAP will have zero trading fees. Whether this incentive applies indefinitely to a particular account or only to the amount of tokens that are purchased during the ICO is uncertain. IDAP tokens will be used to play platform fees.

Token Economy: Total supply:1,000,000,000 IDAP It is stated that IDAP will burn 20% of IDAP tokens that are received from trading and commission fees until the total supply reached 500 million (initially 1 billion). An example of a purchase of cryptocurrency is included in the whitepaper is presented as follows: Quantity 1 Spot rate $10,000 Actual Trading fee $10 (0.1%) Discounted Trading fee $5 (0.05%) Current IDAP spot price 10¢ per IDAP Trading fee payable 50 IDAP tokens

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure of the platform is not outlined. The organization does not seem to view decentralization as a guiding principle of the project. There are brief mentions of public votes that will take place in order to determine the tokens/coins that will be added to the IDAP exchange. However, specific details are not presented.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 200,000,000 IDAP Hard cap: 750,000,000 IDAP 1 IDAP = $0.03 USD The use of proceeds is not adequately described in order to justify the raise amounts. The fundraising goals seem arbitrary and unrelated to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 40% – Platform and product development 22% – Marketing and branding 18% – Operations 10% – Reserves 6% – Legal 4% – License and insurance Further detail with respect to how funds will be used is limited.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented on the company website as follows: 75% – Pubic sale 10% – Team 5% – Liquidity 5% – Advisors/bounty 5% – Employee pool The vesting periods is outlined as follows: Team tokens will be vested for a period of 2 years (25% will be released every 6 months). It is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The majority of the whitepaper discusses that features of the platform. The problem statement is briefly discussed. Technical aspects of the whitepaper are lacking. The business model and token economics are outlined thoroughly. Team information is provided on the company website as well as the whitepaper. The company GitHub page is provided and contains repositories for token smart contracts and the whitelist. Legal content is available, albeit brief.

Readability: The document is well organized and but takes time to read due to the nature of the project.

Transparency: The current stage of development of the platform is not adequately discussed. There are video demonstrations of the product available on the company website. However, it is uncertain whether or not the product was solely developed for the purposed of this project or whether it was migrated from other projects. The company GitHub page is provided but it only contains token smart contracts and the whitelist.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model of the platform primarily consists of receiving commission from market trades and management fees. Token economics are outlined specifically. The fee structure of the platform is outlined as follows:
COMMISION FEES
Spot trading fee
– 0.05* to 0.10%
Derivative trading fee
– 0.015* to 0.03%
Service fee on P2P Lending
– 7.5* to 15%
ETFs
– No entry fee, 2% exit fee
ICO venture fund
– 2% Management fee

Where (*) indicates fee is only payable with IDAP tokens.

TRADING FEES
IDAP token spot buying fee
– NIL
IDAP token spot selling fee
– 0.05%

It is also stated that 20% of all tokens received from platform fees will be burned until the total token supply is halved from 1 billion to 500 million IDAP. Token allocation is presented with moderate levels of detail.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There is a lack of technical discussion, as most of the document focuses on discussing features of trhe platform. Vague statements regarding technical aspects of the platform which do not provide additional detail are included in the whitepaper. For example, it is stated that the “exchange platform will be hosted on high availability IT infrastructure, thus, enabling fault-tolerant architecture with guaranteed 99.995 percent uptime”. The exchange platform architecture is not discussed at a low level. The exchange itself does not seem to utilize blockchain technology. Instead, the organization intends to utilize a standby exchange with active data replication that will “start as an active exchange, in case the primary exchange goes down due to any reason”.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a very brief section (approximately a half-page in length) towards the end of the whitepaper that outlines legal and regulatory considerations. The majority of the content discusses various licenses that the organization intends to obtain. It is not evident that the organization possesses any notable licenses at the current time and the stage of development with regards to obtaining the licenses that are outlined are not discussed.

 

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.

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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Business and token models are well-developed and clearly presented.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
3.0

Product

Differentiation: The platform aims to provide a marketplace for derivatives for cryptoassets. When compared to traditional solutions, the platform does not provide any features that are particularly novel (with the exception of the use of cryptocurrency). One of the problems that the project aims to solve is that “”trading systems presently available in the crypto landscape are nowhere close to their traditional counterparts””. As such, the trading systems that the organization plans to implement are not unique, and when compared to other blockchain-focused projects for derivative markets, there does not seem to be any standout features. The organization is aiming to primarily implement existing features towards cryptocurrency markets.

Readiness: A series of video demonstrations can be found on the company website. The company GitHub page is provided but does not contain a working prototype of the product. As such, it seems as though the solution is at a testing phase (specific discussion regarding current stage of development is inadequately discussed in the whitepaper).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website is as follows: Q4 2017 – Ideation: Detailed research and analysis on crypto exchanges and product offerings. Q1 2018 – Conceptualization of IDAP ecosystem: Research and design, establish a team, form an advisory board and identify strategic partners. Q2 2018 – IDAP ICO launch and company formation: Website launch, lite paper and white paper release, community building, token listing & sale, company registration in Estonia, license procurement for derivatives trading and asset management, product development. Q3 2018 – IDAP exchange development: Product architecture and front-end development, alpha version testing, banking partnership, derivatives market products testing, API integration testing, community building, token sale and exchange marketing. Q4 2018 – IDAP exchange launch: Beta version testing, web & mobile application trading, derivatives product offering, extended cryptocurrencies and tokens listing, desktop application and ICO venture fund. Q1 2019 – Integration of investment instruments: Investment instruments like ETF, crypto indices and P2P lending will be integrated into the platform. Q2 2019 – ICO incubation: Provide ICO incubation services and implement user feedback driven product improvements. The roadmap presented in the whitepaper has much more milestones and is presented as follows: Q4 2017 to Q1 2018 – Ideation & conceptualization of the IDAP ecosystem – Detailed research and analysis conducted – Core team built – Advisory board formed – Strategic partnerships made Q2 2018 – Website launch and Lite Paper release – White Paper release – Community building – IDAP exchange platform development – Company registration in Estonia – Release of IDAP demo platform – License procurement for derivatives trading and asset management – Public voting for coins/tokens that will be listed on the live exchange – Start of token sale Q3 2018 – Product architecture development and testing – Front-end development – Formation of banking partnerships for fiat integration – Derivatives market products testing – Advanced APIs integration and testing – IDAP Exchange marketing – Alpha release Q4 2018 – Test run of platform features – Beta release of the platform – IDAP Exchange launched, supporting desktop, web & mobile apps – Listing of top voted coins/tokens on IDAP Exchange – Gathering of the ICO Venture Fund Q1 2019 – Integration of extended product offerings – ETF integrated into IDAP platform – P2P lending functionality enabled – Crypto Indices integrated into IDAP platform – Customer feedback collection and analysis Q2 2019 – IDAP’s ICO incubation services launched – New cryptocurrencies added to exchange listing – Evolved, improved and new product offerings based on customer feedback – Integration of live news tracking and analytics tools There are many milestones presented between both roadmaps. There is a sufficient amount of business and technology focused milestones which align with the written content (regarding the development plan) that is in the whitepaper. Adequate detail is provided for most milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has started development of the product and have video demonstrations of various features of the platform available on the company website. Further developments include the development of the exchange with the functionality outlined in the whitepaper.

Feasiblity: Considering that the current stage of technical development is uncertain (technical specifics are not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper and the company GitHub page is limited with regards to content), the feasibility of the organization succeeding with the milestones set out in the roadmaps seem unfavorable. This is further exemplified by the fact that when assessing the milestones presented for Q2 2018 (this review was written in the end June 2018), there is no clear indication that the organization has achieved many of the milestones (license procurement, public voting, release of IDAP demo).

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

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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:
2.0

Market

Target User Base: The platform is targeted towards traders and investors that would like to enter cryptocurrency markets.

Market Penetration Potential: The platform does not provide notable advantages over similar blockchain-focused derivative trading platforms that would indicate that the project will likely gain market dominance, especially considering the lack of legal content that is provided in the whitepaper which may indicate that the organization may face considerable regulatory obstacles as the platform develops.

Direct Competition: There are several blockchain-focused projects that aim to provide users the ability to have access to derivatives trading. Potential competitors include:

– VariabL
– BBOD
– Fortuna
– WandX
– Leverj
– Close Cross
– EverMarkets
– Digitex
– Globitex
– Betex
– LucidExchange
– QUEDEX

Solution Advantage: The platform does not provide considerable advantages when compared to similar platforms. It is explicitly stated that the organization is attempting to implement “legacy trading offerings into the current cryptocurrency market”.

Blockchain Disruption: Cryptocurrency derivative trading has potential for growth, but the introduction of blockchain technology, as described by the solution, has low potential for disruption since blockchain technology is primarily being used to create tokens as a means to generate funds as opposed to using the technology in a manner that would allow for the development of a disruptive product or service.

Long-Term Vision: The platform aims to provide a solution for a gap in the cryptocurrency market, where there is a lack of derivatives trading opportunities for cryptocurrencies. The organization plans to create a competitive product and to gain hold of the market for cryptocurrency derivatives trading.

 

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...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly unlikely.
Direct Competition

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
Long-Term Vision

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
1.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: According to the company LinkedIn profile, the organization is a privately held company stationed in Tallinn, Harju County and was founded in 2018. It is stated in the whitepaper that IDAP will begin operations in the European Union. It is uncertain whether the organization has received significant investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 8 individuals are presented on the company website along with 11 advisors. The structure of the core team is as follows:

Awanish Rajan | Co-Founder & CEO
Atish Katyal | CFA Co-Founder & CFO
Murali Thakur | Co-Founder & CTO
Anupam Agarwal | Co-Founder & COO
Mukund Thakur | Tech Lead
Ritika Chaturvedi | Operations Manager
Abhishek Crypto | Analyst
Himanshu Tiwari | Blockchain Analyst

When investigating the LinkedIn profiles of the co-founders, it was that none are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects. However the tech lead is concurrently involved with with flipkart.com, an Indian electronic commerce company.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles and bio descriptions are included for all team members on the company website. All links are lead to an existing profile which contains information regarding prior work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: On the bio description of the website, it is stated that the CEO has 12 years of extensive trading experience in trading and crypto markets. When assessing the individual’s LinkedIn profile, it can be seen that that the person only has experience as a retail investor. Most lead team members have work experience that pertains to derivatives trading. Prior work experience for most team members align with the nature of the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There are a lack of individuals that have experience with blockchain technology development. Overall, there seems to be a lack of developers on the team. The skill set of the team is skewed towards finance and business development.

Strategic Partnerships: Partnerships that are listed on the company website are as follows:

– Investing.com
– Stigasoft
– GetSmart
– 3Apples

Notable partnership/launch partners with considerable user bases are not evident.

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
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:
3.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: IDAP is an ERC20 token, where ICO contributers that purchase over 20,000 IDAP will have zero trading fees. Whether this incentive applies indefinitely to a particular account or only to the amount of tokens that are purchased during the ICO is uncertain. IDAP tokens will be used to play platform fees.

Token Economy: Total supply:1,000,000,000 IDAP It is stated that IDAP will burn 20% of IDAP tokens that are received from trading and commission fees until the total supply reached 500 million (initially 1 billion). An example of a purchase of cryptocurrency is included in the whitepaper is presented as follows: Quantity 1 Spot rate $10,000 Actual Trading fee $10 (0.1%) Discounted Trading fee $5 (0.05%) Current IDAP spot price 10¢ per IDAP Trading fee payable 50 IDAP tokens

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure of the platform is not outlined. The organization does not seem to view decentralization as a guiding principle of the project. There are brief mentions of public votes that will take place in order to determine the tokens/coins that will be added to the IDAP exchange. However, specific details are not presented.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 200,000,000 IDAP Hard cap: 750,000,000 IDAP 1 IDAP = $0.03 USD The use of proceeds is not adequately described in order to justify the raise amounts. The fundraising goals seem arbitrary and unrelated to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 40% – Platform and product development 22% – Marketing and branding 18% – Operations 10% – Reserves 6% – Legal 4% – License and insurance Further detail with respect to how funds will be used is limited.

Token Allocation: The token distribution is presented on the company website as follows: 75% – Pubic sale 10% – Team 5% – Liquidity 5% – Advisors/bounty 5% – Employee pool The vesting periods is outlined as follows: Team tokens will be vested for a period of 2 years (25% will be released every 6 months). It is unclear whether 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.

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly or essentially determined, well thought-out and healthily structured.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

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?

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Token Economics Score:
2.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website