IOV

Aiming to build a decentralized DNS for blockchains, where the Blockchain Name Service (BNS) will list all active blockchains, their respective tokens and the IP addresses of their bootstrap nodes.

About IOV

IOV aims to increase the ease of use and increase the adoption of cryptocurrency by developing a protocol, Blockchain Communication Protocol (BCP), that allows users to interact with multiple cryptocurrencies without the need for using multiple wallets. The IOV Wallet will be able to send/receive/exchange any cryptocurrency that utilizes the Blockchain Name Service (BNS). Users will be able to use “human readable addresses” when interacting with tokens through the IOV Wallet. IOV tokens are used to used for staking and to pay service fees associated with updating the Blockchain Name Service.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.3
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.

5.0
N/A
5 - Clear, comprehensible, coherent, consistent, concise. Professionally organized and well articulated.
Transparency

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

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: There are a few documents that can be found through the IOV website: the whitepaper, a document which summarizes the platform, and a document that outlines the details of the token and token sale. Technical content is lacking: technical aspects of the platform are described in layman terms and lacks specificity. There is little content provided that discusses the business development plans of the platform. The token economy and details of the token sale are discussed (specific fee structure is absent). Use cases of the platform are also included in the whitepaper. Legal content is included but is fairly brief. The company GitHub page is provided and also includes a demonstration of the BCP.

Readability: The document does not seem to deliberately obfuscate the information presented with technical jargon and buzzwords. The whitepaper is professionally written.

Transparency: Limitations of various blockchains are discussed, but the limitations of the platform itself is absent from the documents and the website. Some vague statements regarding regulatory compliance is included: “the founders have already taken all possible actions to make the company and the ICO compliant with the existing laws and the French and European regulation”. A thorough assessment on competitors is not included, but the organization provides their company GitHub page which presents a demonstration of an early version of the product. The team is listed on the company website along with their LinkedIn profiles that contain adequate levels of information. Overall, some further information could be provided for some aspects of the platform, but it does not seem as though the information presented is misleading.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Content regarding the business-related aspects of the platform does not extend past discussions regarding the token sale. It is not clear how the organization intends to market the platform or use the funds that are allocated to the incentive programs. Token model is briefly discussed, but specific details of the fee structure of the platform is not absent.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: A high level (and brief) overview of the technological stack is discussed: the consensus layer uses Tendermint while the back-end utilized Golang and Nodejs whereas the front-end is on Reacjs. Further details are not provided with regards to the technical aspects of the platform are minimal. The information is focused on discussing the intended features of the platform/service as opposed to the organization’s plan to implement and execute their technology development plan. For example, the Blockchain Communication Protocol (BCP) is only briefly mentioned as opposed to being thoroughly evaluated and discussed. The platform intends to migrate from the Ethereum Blockchain to the IOV Blockchain (Blockchain Name Service), however, the details of the differences between the two platforms is not clearly indicated.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: It is stated that a third-party provider will be responsible for verifying identities for KYC purposes, but the provider is not specified. However, with regards to legal content, the organization has disclosed their relationship with FieldFisher, a law firm that is contracted to assist the company with the ICO. A brief disclaimer is included towards the end of the token sale document.

Documentation Market

Product

2.8
Product
Differentiation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

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

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, innovative use of smart contract functionality or blockchain technology as part of the platform.

Product

Differentiation: There are other platforms/services that allows users to create human readable addresses. IOV differs from most platforms by incorporating this aspect of the platform (Blockchain Name Service) with the IOV Wallet, which is able to interact with a multitude of blockchains using the Blockchain Communication Protocol.

Readiness: A demonstration of the Blockchain Communication Protocol is available on the website. The state of development of the BCP demonstration is not adequately discussed. Additionally, the number of cryptocurrencies that are currently supported by the platform is unclear. Token smart contracts are not yet included on the organization’s GitHub page.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A technical roadmap is presented in the token sale document with high levels of detail. A condensed roadmap is also presented on the website as follows: Q2 2018 – POC 1 – BCP released – IOV Wallet V1 Q3 2018 – POC 2 – BNS V1 – IOV Wallet V2 – Testnet with several blockchains implementing BCP Q4 2018 – Version 1 Released – BNS V2 – IOV Wallet V3 – Deployment Tools to deploy a blockchain implementing BCP Overall technical milestones are presented, but business-related development plans are lacking in the roadmaps. However, when referencing the roadmap presented in the token sale document, milestones are accompanied with specific details. For example, the first proof-of-concept (POC) planned for Q2 2018 is presented as follows: POC1 – Full technical specification of the Blockchain Communication Protocol
 – Testnet with 2 blockchains implementing with the partial implementation of the Blockchain Communication Protocol (send coin, human address) – The 1st working prototype of the IOV Wallet working which demonstrates basic functionality such as sending/receiving different tokens from a single wallet implementing with the partial implementation BCP The milestone presented above (POC1) is stated to be planned for April 2018. Based on the information available through the organization’s GitHub page, the organization has not met the goals of their first major deadline.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is still at the early stages of development. Based on the roadmap, the company is in the process of developing their first proof-of-concept. A demonstration of the Blockchain Communication Protocol is available via GitHub, but other technical developments such as the IOV Wallet is not yet available (the organization failed to satisfy their first deadline set for April 2018).

Feasiblity: The feasibility of the project is uncertain. The success of the platform is highly dependent on the number of projects/platforms that are supported by the ecosystem. Thus far, specific platforms which will be supported by the ecosystem is not explicitly listed. Additionally, when assessing the roadmap, the organization has failed to make their first deadline in April 2018 which included the development of a prototype of the IOV Wallet.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform proposes protocols which will possibly unify multiple cryptocurrencies into one platform. It provides a means for users to access new projects in a more simple manner, as the need to use multiple wallets is not longer required (in theory). The platform itself intends to migrate from the ERC20 IOV tokens to native IOV tokens running on the Blockchain Name Service.

Product Company and Team

Market

3.5
Market
Target User Base

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Blockchain Disruption

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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.)

5.0
N/A
5 - Global, infrastructural leadership. Establishment of technological foundations and guidelines. Paving the way for the future.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base, for the time being, are those in the cryptocurrency/blockchain space (both users and organizations/platforms). As the technology gains more widespread adoption, the platform has potential to grow alongside it.

Market Penetration Potential: The platform requires the cooperation of other organizations/platforms to use willingly integrate their system into the IOV ecosystem via BCP and BNS. There is currently a usability issue with cryptocurrency, as users typically have to manage multiple tokens and blockchains. A good growth strategy is essential in order to attract notable projects and gain momentum with the platform’s adoption.

Direct Competition: There are a number of competitors that aim to implement human readable addresses such as Tutellus, Onename, and Nxtcrypto. However, projects that aim to provide human readable addresses for a number of blockchains/platforms in conjunction with the development of a universal wallet (and corresponding protocols) are not clearly evident. Additionally, some competitors such as Infinito Wallet and Morpheus aim to implement a multi-cryptocurrency wallet but integration is done on a manual basis. In other words, when compared to IOV, the platforms lack a protocol that allow different blockchains to be automatically supported by the wallet

Solution Advantage: When compared to projects that aims to develop a means to improve the user experience when using cryptocurrency, the platform combines the use of human readable addresses (which some projects aiming to develop) in conjunction with the development of a wallet where users are able to send/receive/exchange a multitude of tokens (which other projects also aim to develop). The Blockchain Name Service and Blockchain Communication Protocol which allow future alternative blockchains to integrate easily with the IOV Wallet. The combination of these aspects give the platform an advantage when compared to similar projects.

Blockchain Disruption: There is a current issue with usability when considering the number of blockchain projects that require the use of various wallets. As a result, if IOV is able to successfully alleviate this issue (along with developing human readable addresses), then the potential to disrupt the blockchain/cryptocurrency ecosystem is evident.

Long-Term Vision: The project aims to increase the ease of use with cryptocurrency and make sure that the technology is widely adopted. The scope of the project is considerable (within the realm of blockchain/cryptocurrency) and establishes guidelines and standards in order to improve the user experience when dealing with cryptocurrencies.

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: IOV SAS is a privately-held organization incorporated in Paris and was founded in 2017. It is unclear if the organization has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team is fairly small, with 6 core team members presented on the website. Advisors are not clearly presented. All team members disclose their affiliation with appropriate positions on their LinkedIn profile. The company is looking to expand, as there is a section on the website that states that the organization is looking to hire individuals. None of the team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. Thus, it appears that the team commitment is favorable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles of the 6 core team members show moderate levels of information with regards to prior work history and work experience (with the exception of the Communications Manager). The information presented with regards to some team member’s previous work experience refers to the organization itself as opposed to the specific roles and responsibilities of the individual.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: One of the co-founders was a previous Systems Architect at Lisk for approximately 1.5 years. The lead developer was previously a senior software engineer at Tendermint. Other team members have had prior experience with roles related to business-development (founders, directors, etc).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team is fairly small and seems as though the project would require a capable (and sizable) development team. On the company website, it can be seen that the organization is actively looking to expand their team. However, the existing team members with a technical role have had notable experience with blockchain development.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships are not clearly presented.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.7
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized, or centralized components can be justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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: IOV is an ERC20 compliant token.There is a specific section in the token sale document IOV tokens are used to pay fees associated with using and updating the Blockchain Name Service, which includes the addition of a new blockchain definition to the BNS or when there is a transfer of ownership. IOV tokens are also staked in order to “secure the Blockchain Name Service”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 417 million IOV The fee structure of the platform is not adequately described. It is stated that a fee will be used to register blockchain names, definitions, and human readable addresses (public keys), but the specific fee structure is not discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): System decentralization is somewhat uncertain due to the lack of information presented regarding governance. In the token sale document, it is stated that “funds will require the signature of a majority of the board to be used”. The details of how the board members are elected are not discussed. Otherwise, the platform appears to operate in a decentralized manner. It is also stated that validators will need to stake IOV tokens to “secure the Blockchain Name Service”, when the platform is further developed, at which point ERC20 IOV tokens will be transferred to the IOV Token that lives on the IOV Blockchain (Blockchain Name Service).

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $2MM EUR Hard cap: $25MM EUR The raise amounts seem quite reasonable considering the scope of the project and when assessing the use of proceeds.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 50% – Software development 30% – Marketing/Sales 15% – Admin/Legal 5% – Ecosystem Technical developments that are planned are specifically outlined as follows: – The Blockchain Communication Protocol – The Blockchain Name Service implementing the Blockchain Communication Protocol – The IOV Wallet implementing the Blockchain Communication Protocol – Templates and deployment tools for the creation of new blockchains implementing the Blockchain Communication Protocol and blockchain generator – Initial support service to help the adoption of the tools

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented as follows: 65% – Token sale 12% – owned by the security reserve that will be staked by the IOV SAS for operating the Blockchain Name Service. 20% – Founders, advisors and employees 3% – Bounties and Incentive Programs Vesting periods are outlined as follows: Founders and employees – blocked first year, then released the second year, 1/12 per month Advisors – Released after the first year.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: There are a few documents that can be found through the IOV website: the whitepaper, a document which summarizes the platform, and a document that outlines the details of the token and token sale. Technical content is lacking: technical aspects of the platform are described in layman terms and lacks specificity. There is little content provided that discusses the business development plans of the platform. The token economy and details of the token sale are discussed (specific fee structure is absent). Use cases of the platform are also included in the whitepaper. Legal content is included but is fairly brief. The company GitHub page is provided and also includes a demonstration of the BCP.

Readability: The document does not seem to deliberately obfuscate the information presented with technical jargon and buzzwords. The whitepaper is professionally written.

Transparency: Limitations of various blockchains are discussed, but the limitations of the platform itself is absent from the documents and the website. Some vague statements regarding regulatory compliance is included: “the founders have already taken all possible actions to make the company and the ICO compliant with the existing laws and the French and European regulation”. A thorough assessment on competitors is not included, but the organization provides their company GitHub page which presents a demonstration of an early version of the product. The team is listed on the company website along with their LinkedIn profiles that contain adequate levels of information. Overall, some further information could be provided for some aspects of the platform, but it does not seem as though the information presented is misleading.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Content regarding the business-related aspects of the platform does not extend past discussions regarding the token sale. It is not clear how the organization intends to market the platform or use the funds that are allocated to the incentive programs. Token model is briefly discussed, but specific details of the fee structure of the platform is not absent.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: A high level (and brief) overview of the technological stack is discussed: the consensus layer uses Tendermint while the back-end utilized Golang and Nodejs whereas the front-end is on Reacjs. Further details are not provided with regards to the technical aspects of the platform are minimal. The information is focused on discussing the intended features of the platform/service as opposed to the organization’s plan to implement and execute their technology development plan. For example, the Blockchain Communication Protocol (BCP) is only briefly mentioned as opposed to being thoroughly evaluated and discussed. The platform intends to migrate from the Ethereum Blockchain to the IOV Blockchain (Blockchain Name Service), however, the details of the differences between the two platforms is not clearly indicated.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: It is stated that a third-party provider will be responsible for verifying identities for KYC purposes, but the provider is not specified. However, with regards to legal content, the organization has disclosed their relationship with FieldFisher, a law firm that is contracted to assist the company with the ICO. A brief disclaimer is included towards the end of the token sale document.

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.

5.0
N/A
5 - Clear, comprehensible, coherent, consistent, concise. Professionally organized and well articulated.
Transparency

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure. Necessary information provided.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

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

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

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:
3.3

Product

Differentiation: There are other platforms/services that allows users to create human readable addresses. IOV differs from most platforms by incorporating this aspect of the platform (Blockchain Name Service) with the IOV Wallet, which is able to interact with a multitude of blockchains using the Blockchain Communication Protocol.

Readiness: A demonstration of the Blockchain Communication Protocol is available on the website. The state of development of the BCP demonstration is not adequately discussed. Additionally, the number of cryptocurrencies that are currently supported by the platform is unclear. Token smart contracts are not yet included on the organization’s GitHub page.

Concreteness of Development Plans: A technical roadmap is presented in the token sale document with high levels of detail. A condensed roadmap is also presented on the website as follows: Q2 2018 – POC 1 – BCP released – IOV Wallet V1 Q3 2018 – POC 2 – BNS V1 – IOV Wallet V2 – Testnet with several blockchains implementing BCP Q4 2018 – Version 1 Released – BNS V2 – IOV Wallet V3 – Deployment Tools to deploy a blockchain implementing BCP Overall technical milestones are presented, but business-related development plans are lacking in the roadmaps. However, when referencing the roadmap presented in the token sale document, milestones are accompanied with specific details. For example, the first proof-of-concept (POC) planned for Q2 2018 is presented as follows: POC1 – Full technical specification of the Blockchain Communication Protocol
 – Testnet with 2 blockchains implementing with the partial implementation of the Blockchain Communication Protocol (send coin, human address) – The 1st working prototype of the IOV Wallet working which demonstrates basic functionality such as sending/receiving different tokens from a single wallet implementing with the partial implementation BCP The milestone presented above (POC1) is stated to be planned for April 2018. Based on the information available through the organization’s GitHub page, the organization has not met the goals of their first major deadline.

Current Position within Roadmap: The organization is still at the early stages of development. Based on the roadmap, the company is in the process of developing their first proof-of-concept. A demonstration of the Blockchain Communication Protocol is available via GitHub, but other technical developments such as the IOV Wallet is not yet available (the organization failed to satisfy their first deadline set for April 2018).

Feasiblity: The feasibility of the project is uncertain. The success of the platform is highly dependent on the number of projects/platforms that are supported by the ecosystem. Thus far, specific platforms which will be supported by the ecosystem is not explicitly listed. Additionally, when assessing the roadmap, the organization has failed to make their first deadline in April 2018 which included the development of a prototype of the IOV Wallet.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform proposes protocols which will possibly unify multiple cryptocurrencies into one platform. It provides a means for users to access new projects in a more simple manner, as the need to use multiple wallets is not longer required (in theory). The platform itself intends to migrate from the ERC20 IOV tokens to native IOV tokens running on the Blockchain Name Service.

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

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

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

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, innovative use of smart contract functionality or blockchain technology as part of the platform.
Product Score:
2.8

Market

Target User Base: The target user base, for the time being, are those in the cryptocurrency/blockchain space (both users and organizations/platforms). As the technology gains more widespread adoption, the platform has potential to grow alongside it.

Market Penetration Potential: The platform requires the cooperation of other organizations/platforms to use willingly integrate their system into the IOV ecosystem via BCP and BNS. There is currently a usability issue with cryptocurrency, as users typically have to manage multiple tokens and blockchains. A good growth strategy is essential in order to attract notable projects and gain momentum with the platform’s adoption.

Direct Competition: There are a number of competitors that aim to implement human readable addresses such as Tutellus, Onename, and Nxtcrypto. However, projects that aim to provide human readable addresses for a number of blockchains/platforms in conjunction with the development of a universal wallet (and corresponding protocols) are not clearly evident. Additionally, some competitors such as Infinito Wallet and Morpheus aim to implement a multi-cryptocurrency wallet but integration is done on a manual basis. In other words, when compared to IOV, the platforms lack a protocol that allow different blockchains to be automatically supported by the wallet

Solution Advantage: When compared to projects that aims to develop a means to improve the user experience when using cryptocurrency, the platform combines the use of human readable addresses (which some projects aiming to develop) in conjunction with the development of a wallet where users are able to send/receive/exchange a multitude of tokens (which other projects also aim to develop). The Blockchain Name Service and Blockchain Communication Protocol which allow future alternative blockchains to integrate easily with the IOV Wallet. The combination of these aspects give the platform an advantage when compared to similar projects.

Blockchain Disruption: There is a current issue with usability when considering the number of blockchain projects that require the use of various wallets. As a result, if IOV is able to successfully alleviate this issue (along with developing human readable addresses), then the potential to disrupt the blockchain/cryptocurrency ecosystem is evident.

Long-Term Vision: The project aims to increase the ease of use with cryptocurrency and make sure that the technology is widely adopted. The scope of the project is considerable (within the realm of blockchain/cryptocurrency) and establishes guidelines and standards in order to improve the user experience when dealing with cryptocurrencies.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Blockchain Disruption

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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.)

5.0
N/A
5 - Global, infrastructural leadership. Establishment of technological foundations and guidelines. Paving the way for the future.
Market Score:
3.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: IOV SAS is a privately-held organization incorporated in Paris and was founded in 2017. It is unclear if the organization has received investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team is fairly small, with 6 core team members presented on the website. Advisors are not clearly presented. All team members disclose their affiliation with appropriate positions on their LinkedIn profile. The company is looking to expand, as there is a section on the website that states that the organization is looking to hire individuals. None of the team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations. Thus, it appears that the team commitment is favorable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles of the 6 core team members show moderate levels of information with regards to prior work history and work experience (with the exception of the Communications Manager). The information presented with regards to some team member’s previous work experience refers to the organization itself as opposed to the specific roles and responsibilities of the individual.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: One of the co-founders was a previous Systems Architect at Lisk for approximately 1.5 years. The lead developer was previously a senior software engineer at Tendermint. Other team members have had prior experience with roles related to business-development (founders, directors, etc).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team is fairly small and seems as though the project would require a capable (and sizable) development team. On the company website, it can be seen that the organization is actively looking to expand their team. However, the existing team members with a technical role have had notable experience with blockchain development.

Strategic Partnerships: Notable partnerships are not clearly presented.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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: IOV is an ERC20 compliant token.There is a specific section in the token sale document IOV tokens are used to pay fees associated with using and updating the Blockchain Name Service, which includes the addition of a new blockchain definition to the BNS or when there is a transfer of ownership. IOV tokens are also staked in order to “secure the Blockchain Name Service”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 417 million IOV The fee structure of the platform is not adequately described. It is stated that a fee will be used to register blockchain names, definitions, and human readable addresses (public keys), but the specific fee structure is not discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): System decentralization is somewhat uncertain due to the lack of information presented regarding governance. In the token sale document, it is stated that “funds will require the signature of a majority of the board to be used”. The details of how the board members are elected are not discussed. Otherwise, the platform appears to operate in a decentralized manner. It is also stated that validators will need to stake IOV tokens to “secure the Blockchain Name Service”, when the platform is further developed, at which point ERC20 IOV tokens will be transferred to the IOV Token that lives on the IOV Blockchain (Blockchain Name Service).

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $2MM EUR Hard cap: $25MM EUR The raise amounts seem quite reasonable considering the scope of the project and when assessing the use of proceeds.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 50% – Software development 30% – Marketing/Sales 15% – Admin/Legal 5% – Ecosystem Technical developments that are planned are specifically outlined as follows: – The Blockchain Communication Protocol – The Blockchain Name Service implementing the Blockchain Communication Protocol – The IOV Wallet implementing the Blockchain Communication Protocol – Templates and deployment tools for the creation of new blockchains implementing the Blockchain Communication Protocol and blockchain generator – Initial support service to help the adoption of the tools

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented as follows: 65% – Token sale 12% – owned by the security reserve that will be staked by the IOV SAS for operating the Blockchain Name Service. 20% – Founders, advisors and employees 3% – Bounties and Incentive Programs Vesting periods are outlined as follows: Founders and employees – blocked first year, then released the second year, 1/12 per month Advisors – Released after the first year.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Some aspects stll undetermined, or potentially but not necessarily problematic.
System Decentralization (besides token)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized, or centralized components can be justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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:
3.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website