Omega One

A trade execution platform that provides a cheap, safe way to trade crypto assets.

About Omega One

Omega One acts as an intermediary between individuals and exchanges in order to address current issues with participating in the cryptocurrency market, which includes liquidity, security, and transparency deficiencies. Orders are first checked against the platform’s exchange (Omega Private Exchange), and if no buyer/seller match is found, the platform executes the order on behalf of the user and distributes the order across various exchanges. OMT tokens are used to pay platform fees.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.7
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.

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document begins with an introduction to the team and a brief overview of the problem statement. The organization’s plans to address liquidity is discussed, along some details regarding the crypto economics of the platform (fees, inflation mechanism, etc). Written technical content is lacking and technical details are are mostly expressed via a series of figures. Business-related aspects of the platform are discussed broadly. The team is presented in the whitepaper and the company website. The company GitHub page is not presented. Legal content is available but lacking.

Readability: The document is simple to read and does not seem deliberately obfuscated with the exception of the figures outlining the technical infrastructure of the platform.

Transparency: There is a lack of discussion regarding the technical components of the platform. The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. A thorough comparison with potential competitors is not included. LinkedIn profiles for advisors are not included in the whitepaper or the company website.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The reserve fund will be managed by the organization and will be used to control the velocity of the sale of Omega One tokens. Details regarding the business development plans for the project are essentially absent. Details regarding the token economics are discussed, but some aspects lack specific detail (fee structure, use of reserve fund, etc).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The majority of the technical aspects of the platform are presented via a series of detailed figures. However, the figures are not accompanied by a thorough discussion which informs the reader as to what the figure is attempting to convey. Various aspects/features of the platform are listed but the interactions of the different components is not discussed thoroughly. The Omega One wallet is linked to several blockchains so that users are able to trade using multiple cryptocurrencies. The wallet will allow users to “control and custody of their funds via their private key; however, the wallet has a built-in interface to the remainder of the Omega ecosystem allowing locking of assets, and secure automated settlements”. Specific technical details are essentially absent.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief legal section towards the end of the whitepaper that spans approximately a half-page.

 

Documentation Market

Product

1.8
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?

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: Omega One acts as its own exchange for users wishing to execute a trade. If the corresponding buyer or seller is not found, the platform will make the trade on the user’s behalf across a multitude of existing exchanges.Liquidity will be distributed evenly based on the following 3 conditions:
– larger orders get filled first
– older orders get filled first
– token whales get filled first

Readiness: The current stage of development is unclear. The company does not adequately discuss their progress in the whitepaper and the company GitHub page is not provided.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

Current State (June 2017)
– The trading engine is in the process of integration with several exchanges.
– Omega token and launch contract are under development.
– The Omega wallet and multi-chain integration are in design phase and will be moving into development in July

Release 1.0 (~Q4 2017)
– Non-custodial smart contract wallets
– 2-5 exchanges
– BTC, ETH and the most popular ERC20 tokens
– First version of execution logic

Release 1.1-1.x (~Q4 2018)
– Integration more exchanges
– More currencies and tokens
– Analytics services
– Fiat currencies (custodial)
– Improved logic

Release 2.0 (~Q4 2019)
– End to end trustless liquidity available
– Self-improving/decentralized logic engine
– Continued expansion across liquidity sources and assets

Overall milestones are outlined. Milestones are mostly self-explanatory but some can be provided with more detail. For example, what the organization means by “improved logic” is uncertain.

Current Position within Roadmap: It is unclear if the organization has been able to reach the milestones set out on the roadmap due to the lack of public information with regards to the company’s current stage of development. Some of the milestones outlined in the roadmap are fairly vague. For example, the details of the “analytics services” and “improved logic” milestones are not clear.

Feasiblity: At the time of review (July 2018), there is no indication that the organization has made significant technical progress. As such, based on the fact that the team has planned to have notable developments (Non-custodial smart contract wallets, exchange integration, launch contract, etc) and that the status of these developments are unknown, it seems unlikely that the organization will reach future milestones before the deadlines set out in the roadmap.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective but provides smart contract functionality that can potentially benefit the blockchain ecosystem overall.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

1.8
Market
Target User Base

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

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

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

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

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

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.)

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

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are primarily those that are interested in trading or investing in cryptocurrencies.

Market Penetration Potential: The potential for market penetration is uncertain. There seems to be a lack of legal content provided in the whitepaper and company website when considering the nature of the project. Regulatory obstacles will be considerable for this project, but the pertaining challenges are not adequately addressed.

Direct Competition: There are various platforms that aim to allow users to trade cryptocurrency while striving to provide increased transparency, security, and liquidity. Potential competitors include:

– XTRADE
– Holdvest
– Tradershub
– QASH
– LIQNET
– B2BX
– GMC Cryptocurrencies
– Singularity X
– INCX
– CoinMetro

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are not evident. There are various similar projects that aim to provide users liquidity by trading across a number a cryptocurrency exchanges.

Blockchain Disruption: The organization claims that by using the Omega One platform, users can save up to 80% to 90% in transaction costs when compared to trading directly on markets. The use of blockchain technology with the project is primarily for the development of tokens in order to generate funds as well as to automate transactions for users across various exchanges. The potential for disruption is moderate, as it could assist with bringing maturity to the blockchain ecosystem.

Long-Term Vision: The vision of the company is outlined towards the beginning of the whitepaper. It is stated that the organization believes that it is “laying the foundation for their maturation as an asset class and building the financial system of the future”. The organization aims to provide benchmarking and analytics of transaction costs in order to assess the impact of the trade, which gives financial institutions a better ability to fulfill their fiduciary duties and provide “best execution”, which the organization believes will allow cryptocurrency markets to increase in maturity. The project has a fairly limited scope when compared to other projects.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.2
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).

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: It is stated in the whitepaper that Omega One is a “ConsenSys Mesh Company”. Based on the company’s Crunchbase page, the organization has raised an undisclosed amount of seed funding from Venture One. The company LinkedIn page states that the privately-held organization is based in Brooklyn, New York.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team is briefly presented towards the beginning of the whitepaper. There is a section on the website that has several job postings (approximately 20 positions). According to the company website at the time of review, the core team consists of 4 individuals along with 11 advisors.

The team structure is outlined as follows:

Alex Gordon-Brander | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Daniel Flax | CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
James Featherly | TRADING PRODUCT MANAGER
James Andrew | TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

Joseph Lubin | STRATEGY ADVISOR
Bart Chilton | COMPLIANCE ADVISOR
Jose Marques | TRADING TECHNOLOGY ADVISOR
Amanda Gutterman | MARKETING ADVISOR
John Lilic | GLOBAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR
Juan Llanos | COMPLIANCE ADVISOR
Ron Garrett | OPERATIONS ADVISOR
Richard Titus | USER EXPERIENCE ADVISOR
John Wu | BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR
Julie Coin | OPERATIONS ADVISOR
Jared Madfes | ADVISOR

All core team members show their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profile. The CTO seems to be concurrently involved as a Technology Management Consultant (Piece of Cake Consulting) and an Advisor (Risk Priorities Inc). The Technical Director is also concurrently involved with two other unrelated organizations.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Only the core team members provide links to their LinkedIn profiles. The technical director does not include a bio description for their profile on the company website. When assessing the 4 LinkedIn profiles included for the core team, it was found that all except the Product Manager provide adequate levels of information regarding past work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The chairman/CEO (Alex Gordon-Brander) is concurrently working as the Chief Business Architect for ConsenSys and was previously a portfolio manager and senior investment analyst. The CTO does not seem to have experience pertaining to blockchain technology development.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): From a technical standpoint, the balance of skill is somewhat difficult to assess based on the fact that the technical development is outsourced to ConsenSys. However, with only the core team of 4 individuals, there seems to be a lack of manpower from a business development perspective.

Strategic Partnerships: ConsenSys is listed as a technology partner, as the project is considered a “ConsenSys Mesh Company”. Notable partnerships/launch partners are not evident.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

1.5
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

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

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

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

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: OMT tokens are used to pay membership fees and provide a trade discount. It is stated that “higher balances of OMT allow members access to preferential liquidity treatment and discounted trading fees”. Trade execution is prioritized to those that have higher relative OMT balances in their Omega One wallets. It is stated that the primary propose of the token sale is to “build a large enough balance sheet that we can provide risk intermediation and settlement facilitation for a meaningful volume of daily trades”.

Token Economy: Total supply: N/A

It is stated that OMT tokens will be “mildly inflationary (~0-5%)” and that “tokens will be sold to members initially in a token auction, and then after launch on an ongoing basis”. It is stated that trading fees will be set by Omega One, but the trading fees are not outlined specifically.

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure of the platform and the organization is not adequately outlined in the whitepaper. It is not evident that token holders will receive any meaningful voting rights. The token supply will be managed by the organization as the company views “algorithmic reserve management policy as dangerous: compromised by inflexibility in the best case and gameable in the worst”. However, the company aims to “decentralize ownership of the bulk of Omega One tokens through time without creating damaging price fluctuations”. This will be done at the discretion of the organizion as opposed to an algorithmic fashion.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A
Hard cap: N/A

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): It is stated that “the detailed token launch mechanism is being designed collaboratively with the marketplace, and will be published shortly in a future article”. As such, the use of proceeds was not adequately outlined at the time of review. The planned uses of funds are simply listed as follows: Platform Balance Sheet?, Operation Expenses Including Staff?, Legal, and the Foundation.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is not presented on the company website or the whitepaper. It is stated on the company website that the “token mechanics and participation requirements will be released upon commencement of the offering. Any information you may have seen about token details related to the 2017 token offering is inaccurate, and we have not yet released any detail related to our securities token offering”.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document begins with an introduction to the team and a brief overview of the problem statement. The organization’s plans to address liquidity is discussed, along some details regarding the crypto economics of the platform (fees, inflation mechanism, etc). Written technical content is lacking and technical details are are mostly expressed via a series of figures. Business-related aspects of the platform are discussed broadly. The team is presented in the whitepaper and the company website. The company GitHub page is not presented. Legal content is available but lacking.

Readability: The document is simple to read and does not seem deliberately obfuscated with the exception of the figures outlining the technical infrastructure of the platform.

Transparency: There is a lack of discussion regarding the technical components of the platform. The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. A thorough comparison with potential competitors is not included. LinkedIn profiles for advisors are not included in the whitepaper or the company website.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The reserve fund will be managed by the organization and will be used to control the velocity of the sale of Omega One tokens. Details regarding the business development plans for the project are essentially absent. Details regarding the token economics are discussed, but some aspects lack specific detail (fee structure, use of reserve fund, etc).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The majority of the technical aspects of the platform are presented via a series of detailed figures. However, the figures are not accompanied by a thorough discussion which informs the reader as to what the figure is attempting to convey. Various aspects/features of the platform are listed but the interactions of the different components is not discussed thoroughly. The Omega One wallet is linked to several blockchains so that users are able to trade using multiple cryptocurrencies. The wallet will allow users to “control and custody of their funds via their private key; however, the wallet has a built-in interface to the remainder of the Omega ecosystem allowing locking of assets, and secure automated settlements”. Specific technical details are essentially absent.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a brief legal section towards the end of the whitepaper that spans approximately a half-page.

 

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.

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.7

Product

Differentiation: Omega One acts as its own exchange for users wishing to execute a trade. If the corresponding buyer or seller is not found, the platform will make the trade on the user’s behalf across a multitude of existing exchanges.Liquidity will be distributed evenly based on the following 3 conditions:
– larger orders get filled first
– older orders get filled first
– token whales get filled first

Readiness: The current stage of development is unclear. The company does not adequately discuss their progress in the whitepaper and the company GitHub page is not provided.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

Current State (June 2017)
– The trading engine is in the process of integration with several exchanges.
– Omega token and launch contract are under development.
– The Omega wallet and multi-chain integration are in design phase and will be moving into development in July

Release 1.0 (~Q4 2017)
– Non-custodial smart contract wallets
– 2-5 exchanges
– BTC, ETH and the most popular ERC20 tokens
– First version of execution logic

Release 1.1-1.x (~Q4 2018)
– Integration more exchanges
– More currencies and tokens
– Analytics services
– Fiat currencies (custodial)
– Improved logic

Release 2.0 (~Q4 2019)
– End to end trustless liquidity available
– Self-improving/decentralized logic engine
– Continued expansion across liquidity sources and assets

Overall milestones are outlined. Milestones are mostly self-explanatory but some can be provided with more detail. For example, what the organization means by “improved logic” is uncertain.

Current Position within Roadmap: It is unclear if the organization has been able to reach the milestones set out on the roadmap due to the lack of public information with regards to the company’s current stage of development. Some of the milestones outlined in the roadmap are fairly vague. For example, the details of the “analytics services” and “improved logic” milestones are not clear.

Feasiblity: At the time of review (July 2018), there is no indication that the organization has made significant technical progress. As such, based on the fact that the team has planned to have notable developments (Non-custodial smart contract wallets, exchange integration, launch contract, etc) and that the status of these developments are unknown, it seems unlikely that the organization will reach future milestones before the deadlines set out in the roadmap.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective but provides smart contract functionality that can potentially benefit the blockchain ecosystem overall.

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Blockchain Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
1.8

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are primarily those that are interested in trading or investing in cryptocurrencies.

Market Penetration Potential: The potential for market penetration is uncertain. There seems to be a lack of legal content provided in the whitepaper and company website when considering the nature of the project. Regulatory obstacles will be considerable for this project, but the pertaining challenges are not adequately addressed.

Direct Competition: There are various platforms that aim to allow users to trade cryptocurrency while striving to provide increased transparency, security, and liquidity. Potential competitors include:

– XTRADE
– Holdvest
– Tradershub
– QASH
– LIQNET
– B2BX
– GMC Cryptocurrencies
– Singularity X
– INCX
– CoinMetro

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are not evident. There are various similar projects that aim to provide users liquidity by trading across a number a cryptocurrency exchanges.

Blockchain Disruption: The organization claims that by using the Omega One platform, users can save up to 80% to 90% in transaction costs when compared to trading directly on markets. The use of blockchain technology with the project is primarily for the development of tokens in order to generate funds as well as to automate transactions for users across various exchanges. The potential for disruption is moderate, as it could assist with bringing maturity to the blockchain ecosystem.

Long-Term Vision: The vision of the company is outlined towards the beginning of the whitepaper. It is stated that the organization believes that it is “laying the foundation for their maturation as an asset class and building the financial system of the future”. The organization aims to provide benchmarking and analytics of transaction costs in order to assess the impact of the trade, which gives financial institutions a better ability to fulfill their fiduciary duties and provide “best execution”, which the organization believes will allow cryptocurrency markets to increase in maturity. The project has a fairly limited scope when compared to other projects.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

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

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

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

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

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.)

2.0
N/A
2 - Monetization and network growth, increasing engagement. Project with somewhat limited scope or questionable viability.
Market Score:
1.8

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: It is stated in the whitepaper that Omega One is a “ConsenSys Mesh Company”. Based on the company’s Crunchbase page, the organization has raised an undisclosed amount of seed funding from Venture One. The company LinkedIn page states that the privately-held organization is based in Brooklyn, New York.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team is briefly presented towards the beginning of the whitepaper. There is a section on the website that has several job postings (approximately 20 positions). According to the company website at the time of review, the core team consists of 4 individuals along with 11 advisors.

The team structure is outlined as follows:

Alex Gordon-Brander | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Daniel Flax | CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
James Featherly | TRADING PRODUCT MANAGER
James Andrew | TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

Joseph Lubin | STRATEGY ADVISOR
Bart Chilton | COMPLIANCE ADVISOR
Jose Marques | TRADING TECHNOLOGY ADVISOR
Amanda Gutterman | MARKETING ADVISOR
John Lilic | GLOBAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR
Juan Llanos | COMPLIANCE ADVISOR
Ron Garrett | OPERATIONS ADVISOR
Richard Titus | USER EXPERIENCE ADVISOR
John Wu | BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR
Julie Coin | OPERATIONS ADVISOR
Jared Madfes | ADVISOR

All core team members show their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profile. The CTO seems to be concurrently involved as a Technology Management Consultant (Piece of Cake Consulting) and an Advisor (Risk Priorities Inc). The Technical Director is also concurrently involved with two other unrelated organizations.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Only the core team members provide links to their LinkedIn profiles. The technical director does not include a bio description for their profile on the company website. When assessing the 4 LinkedIn profiles included for the core team, it was found that all except the Product Manager provide adequate levels of information regarding past work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The chairman/CEO (Alex Gordon-Brander) is concurrently working as the Chief Business Architect for ConsenSys and was previously a portfolio manager and senior investment analyst. The CTO does not seem to have experience pertaining to blockchain technology development.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): From a technical standpoint, the balance of skill is somewhat difficult to assess based on the fact that the technical development is outsourced to ConsenSys. However, with only the core team of 4 individuals, there seems to be a lack of manpower from a business development perspective.

Strategic Partnerships: ConsenSys is listed as a technology partner, as the project is considered a “ConsenSys Mesh Company”. Notable partnerships/launch partners are not evident.

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
Team Assembly and Commitment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
2.2

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: OMT tokens are used to pay membership fees and provide a trade discount. It is stated that “higher balances of OMT allow members access to preferential liquidity treatment and discounted trading fees”. Trade execution is prioritized to those that have higher relative OMT balances in their Omega One wallets. It is stated that the primary propose of the token sale is to “build a large enough balance sheet that we can provide risk intermediation and settlement facilitation for a meaningful volume of daily trades”.

Token Economy: Total supply: N/A

It is stated that OMT tokens will be “mildly inflationary (~0-5%)” and that “tokens will be sold to members initially in a token auction, and then after launch on an ongoing basis”. It is stated that trading fees will be set by Omega One, but the trading fees are not outlined specifically.

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure of the platform and the organization is not adequately outlined in the whitepaper. It is not evident that token holders will receive any meaningful voting rights. The token supply will be managed by the organization as the company views “algorithmic reserve management policy as dangerous: compromised by inflexibility in the best case and gameable in the worst”. However, the company aims to “decentralize ownership of the bulk of Omega One tokens through time without creating damaging price fluctuations”. This will be done at the discretion of the organizion as opposed to an algorithmic fashion.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A
Hard cap: N/A

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): It is stated that “the detailed token launch mechanism is being designed collaboratively with the marketplace, and will be published shortly in a future article”. As such, the use of proceeds was not adequately outlined at the time of review. The planned uses of funds are simply listed as follows: Platform Balance Sheet?, Operation Expenses Including Staff?, Legal, and the Foundation.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is not presented on the company website or the whitepaper. It is stated on the company website that the “token mechanics and participation requirements will be released upon commencement of the offering. Any information you may have seen about token details related to the 2017 token offering is inaccurate, and we have not yet released any detail related to our securities token offering”.

 

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Token issued primarily for fundraising purposes or network effect. Inherent value is minimal or contrived.
Token Economy

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

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

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

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
Token Economics Score:
1.5

Use this code to share the ratings on your website