Orvium

An open source and decentralized framework for managing scholarly publications’ life cycles and the associated data

About Orvium

Orvium is a platform that aims to target the scientific publishing industry. Orvium aims to create a more competitive market wish respect to scientific publishing and give more authority to authors/researchers. ORV tokens are used as stake/reward in order to incentivize reviewers and are also used as payment in order to access documents (authors/owners have control over copyrights and licensing).

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.8
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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.

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Specific technical information and considerations of design and implementation are discussed.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Several documents are included through the company website, including the whitepaper, lightpaper and an executive summary. In addition, there are documents outlining the details of the terms and conditions of the token sale as well as the platform architecture and the token generation event. Potential (blockchain-focused) competitors are not discussed thoroughly. The whitepaper begins with a brief outline of the current state of scientific publication and the justification for the platform, followed by a brief market evaluation of the scientific publication industry. The problem statement is well articulated. Technical content is provided in a separate document and business-related details are mostly discussed in the whitepaper. Token sale details are provided in the TGE document. Team information is presented on the company website and whitepaper. Legal content is discussed in the document which outlines the terms and conditions. A demonstration of the product is available on the company website. It is stated that the code for the MVP and the Orvium platform is hosted on GitLab and that “they will be Open Source to anyone in the community interested in the solutions” (this content is not available through the company website).

Readability: The whitepaper is well-written and organized. The technical document is well-done: sufficient detail is provided without deliberate obfuscation.

Transparency: Market entry barriers are discussed. The development of the MVP/demo is discussed in detail. In the technical document, it is stated that current developments can be accessed through GitLab and that the MVP and the OP will be “Open Source to anyone in the community interested in the solutions”, but this content is not directly available through the company website. There is a lack of clarity with respect to the role and level of involvement of advisors.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The organization heavily criticizes the current scientific publications economic model and refers to it as the “triple-pay” system (governments fund research which are evaluated by (paid) editors and then the product is sold back to government-funded institutions).
An outline of the organization’s strategy is outlined as follows:

– Break publication cost barriers
– Improve knowledge dissemination
– Support research
– Enhance R&D collaboration frameworks
– Open source development

Most components are discussed without providing specific detail, but the overall outline of the company’s growth strategy is provided, nonetheless. Token economics are outlined qualitatively.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The document outlining the technical architecture of the platform gives specific details with regards to the organization’s technical development and implementation strategy. There is thorough discussion provided with regards to the MVP/demo which is can be accessed through the company website. The architecture of the MVP is presented with a discussion of the services that are used (various AWS cloud technologies) for the technology infrastructure.

In the technical document, it is mentioned that there is a “Blockchain chapter”. However, a specific section outlining blockchain technology is not evident. The majority of the technical discussion does not pertain to blockchain technology.

A few times throughout the whitepaper, the organization claims that it will utilize decentralized data storage, but when assessing the specific information presented regarding decentralized architecture in the whitepaper, details are lacking. Only vague/generic descriptions of the IPFS protocol is included. It is stated that “BLOB files which contain persistent user data (accounts, comments, likes, etc.) is planned to be stored via decentralized solutions such as IPFS (main option), Swarm, Sia and Storj. This aspect of the platform is discussed in broad terms and an evaluation of competing solutions is not presented.

The organization’s plan for data analytics is also outlined which include possible data sources (blockchain transactions, existing literature, research and publication relationship, and user data) as well as the necessary architecture (Hadoop & Spark – Amazon EMR, Apache Kafka & Amazon Kinesis).

Overall, the level of technical detail provided is higher compared to most projects, but more content could be provided with respect to blockchain technology and decentralized architecture.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The document outlining the terms and conditions is fairly thorough and spans approximately 17 pages. The document is written professionally and discusses the KYC procedure, risk factors, and disclaimers pertaining to the platform and token sale.

 

Documentation Market

Product

3.0
Product
Differentiation

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

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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: The benefits of the platform are outlined as follows:
– Optimal Publication Costs
– Continuous and Transparent Peer Reviews
– Multi-Authors Peer Reviews
– Recognition and Reward of Peer Reviewers
– Zero-Delay Publication
– Full Life Cycle Traceability
– Support for Manuscript Versioning
– Research Data and Process is Available
– Custom Copyright and User Licenses
– Decentralized Journals

The platform reduces costs while empowering scientists and facilitates a more free market when compared to the current system.

Readiness: An MVP and the an early version of the platform are available on the company website and according to the technical document, the code is available on GitLab upon request.

Concreteness of Development Plans: Thus far, the organization has primarily conceputalized the ecostem, assembled the team, and developed the prototype. Milestones project up until 2020.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has primarily conceptualized the ecosystem, assembled the team, and developed the prototype. Milestones project up until 2020. Development plans are evident based on the milestones set out in the roadmap.

Feasiblity: Thus far, the organization seems to have met major milestones set out on the roadmap. The team is quite large and seemingly capable, thus in combination with the fact that the team have already developed working (demonstration) product, this indicates that the feasibility of the milestones set out in the near future are reasonable.

Blockchain Innovation: The organization plans to implement blockchain technology into the platform but that platform/ecosystem itself does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

3.3
Market
Target User Base

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
Direct Competition

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Long-Term Vision

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.

Market

Target User Base: The platform is targeted towards researchers, scientists, and those that would be interested in their research (readers and institutions).

Market Penetration Potential: The problem with the centralized nature of the current scientific publication system is outlined clearly. Orvium plans to address current market inefficiencies and with their focus on scientific publications, there is potential for the project to gain considerable market share.

Direct Competition: There are a few blockchain-focused projects that to target the publication/authorship sector.

– Globex SCI
– Po.et
– Publica
– Authorship
– DECENT

Solution Advantage: Manuscripts will be submitted to the platform (with the option to stake ORV tokens) in order to create a proof-of-existence and authorship which is stored on the (Ethereum) blockchain. It is stated that “user licensing is completely determined by the authors or owner”. Compared to similar projects, Orvium is specifically targeting the scientific publication sector.

Blockchain Disruption: The use of blockchain technology outlined in the whitepaper mainly pertain to the open/transparent nature of the technology. The scientific publication sector is largely centralized, and as a result, the potential for disruption with the implementation of blockchain technology is evident.

Long-Term Vision: The organization intends to become “the leading publication platform for the research community”. With respect to the technical infrastructure, the organization addresses the fact that current solutions are at the early stages of development (however, specific content with regards to decentralized architecture is minimal). The long-term vision of the organization is also evident based on the future projection of development outlined in the roadmap. The project has a targeted focus and addresses major market inefficiencies with the current system.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.5
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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: Based on the company’s LinkedIn page, Orvium is a publicly-held organization that was founded in 2018 and are based in Tallin, Condado de Harju. It is not clear whether the team has received significant levels of funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 3 team members and 21 advisors (6 scientific advisors, 7 business strategy advisors, and 9 technical advisors) is presented on the company website (only 7 technical advisors are shown in the whitepaper). The team structure is outlined in the whitepaper as follows: Founders Manuel Martin | Senior Project Leader and Blockchain Expert Antonio Romero | Technology Solution Architect Roberto Rabasco | Application and Technology Expert Scientific Advisors Alberto Di Meglio | CERN openlab head Tom Soderstrom | IT Chief Technology Officer Chris Mattmann | Assoc. Chief Technology & Innovation Officer Jesús Villadangos | SCAMPI Lead Appraiser Candidate & Professor Nico Orce | Nuclear physics and nuclear astrophysics Miguel Angel | Professor and Head of Transport & Logistics Business Strategy Advisors Bernd Lapp | Advisor to Blockchain Nicolai Oster | Head of ICO Christopher Tucci | Chair in Corporate Strategy & Innovation Franco Alfami | Director of Innovation Davide Gallo | Manager of Partners Ecosystem Ruben Garcia | Marketing Expert Marek Herm | Attorney at Law & Tax Counsel Tech Advisors Jose Carlos Luna | Computing Engineer & Security Expert Marc Magrans | Computing Engineer & Economist Ignacio Coterillo | Database and Software Engineer Hector Valverde | Solution architect Raul Murillo | Software Engineer Carlos Ghabrous | Software Engineer Alejandro Iribarren | Computing Engineer & Storage Expert Rishi Verma | Software systems architect Jose Andres Cordero | Full Stack Software Engineer The level of involvement from advisors is uncertain. The subtitle presented with each team member at times indicate the role of the individual with respect to the project, and at other times, the subtitle merely outlines the team member’s credentials based off of prior work experience. As such, the number of team members that are fully committed to the project is uncertain. All 3 co-founders are concurrently involved with other projects, two of which are current employees at CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire AKA European Organization for Nuclear Research). The other co-founder is a contract software engineer and the Director of BooleanCloud, a software solution company. The majority of advisory team do not show their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles. Only approximately 6 individuals are listed as employees of Orvium based on the company LinkedIn page.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is accompanied with a bio description and a linked to their LinkedIn profile. Two of the co-founders provide a significant amount of information with regards to their current roles at CERN. In comparison, most advisors provide much less content on their LinkediIn profile.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: One of the scientific advisors, Chris Mattmann, is specifically mentioned in the lightpaper and praised for being “NASA associated CTO and a very active and recognized figure by the open source community”. However, his involvement with the project is not disclosed on his LinkedIn page. The co-founders are tech oriented and have had notable experience developing software solutions regarding data analytics and infrastructure at CERN. Most of the technical advisory team are current employees at CERN.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team mostly consists of a team of technology oriented individuals, but there are a fair number of team members with skill sets that align with business development. There seems to be a lack of individuals with expertise with regards to blockchain development.

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

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

3.0
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

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

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Authors can stake ORV tokens in order to encourage peer review of manuscripts uploaded to the platform. Reviewers are rewarded with these ORV tokens once their reviews have been accepted. It is stated that ORV tokens will be “used in each of the transactions which involves data that is not free”. If authors choose to utilize a paid licensing model then “journals and/or readers will have to pay for accessing, downloading, using or reproducing the content”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 379M ORV IT is stated that authors will be able to stake ORV tokens in order to encourage and challenge the community for peer reviews (staked ORV tokens can be claimed by reviewers after reviews have been accepted). ORV tokens are used for all transactions which involves data that is not free. Authors or researchers will be able to use a paid licensing model for their research, where readers will need to pay ORV tokens in order to access content. These tokens are sent directly to the author(s) and Orvium will receive a percentage of the transaction as commission (the transaction fee is not specified). Journal tokens (JTs) will also be used by DAJs and are obtained when ORV tokens are staked by participants of the DAJs. The license fee to operate the DAJ is not outlined in specific details. JTs used to access governance rules of the particular DAJ. The roles of different participants in the ecosystem (researchers, journal owner, individuals, insituions) are discussed with specific earn/spend mechanisms with respect to both JT and ORV tokens.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that all the software developed by Orvium will always be open-source and that “every single action, task, and transaction in the system (e.g., submissions of manuscripts, revisions, publications, peer reviews, citations checks, author acceptances) will be accessible to anyone”. The governance structure of the organization and the community-driven journals AKA decentralized autonomous journals (DAJs) are briefly outlined. Some aspects of the technological infrastructure are admittedly not fully decentralized at the current time: “Cloud solutions will support Orvium infrastructure requirements, which at the moment of this whitepaper, cannot be fully decentralized”. Although, it is stated that some aspects of the technical infrastructure may be initially developed using centralized solutions, the organization intends to “aim for [a] fully dApp ecosystem”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A Hard cap: $20MM USD The use of proceeds is not adequately described and thus, the raise goals seem unrelated to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 40% – Develop 20% – Science & collaboration 15% – Operations and business dev 10% – R&D 10% – Marketing 5% – Legal & Financial Fund allocations are described quite vaguely. Further details are not specified.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the company website as follows: 60% – Token sale 20% – Orvium OÜ 10% – Team 10% – Advisors and partners The vesting schedule is outlined on the company website as follows: – Orvium OÜ: 3 years – 6 months cliff – Team: 3 years – 6 months cliff It is uncertain whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Several documents are included through the company website, including the whitepaper, lightpaper and an executive summary. In addition, there are documents outlining the details of the terms and conditions of the token sale as well as the platform architecture and the token generation event. Potential (blockchain-focused) competitors are not discussed thoroughly. The whitepaper begins with a brief outline of the current state of scientific publication and the justification for the platform, followed by a brief market evaluation of the scientific publication industry. The problem statement is well articulated. Technical content is provided in a separate document and business-related details are mostly discussed in the whitepaper. Token sale details are provided in the TGE document. Team information is presented on the company website and whitepaper. Legal content is discussed in the document which outlines the terms and conditions. A demonstration of the product is available on the company website. It is stated that the code for the MVP and the Orvium platform is hosted on GitLab and that “they will be Open Source to anyone in the community interested in the solutions” (this content is not available through the company website).

Readability: The whitepaper is well-written and organized. The technical document is well-done: sufficient detail is provided without deliberate obfuscation.

Transparency: Market entry barriers are discussed. The development of the MVP/demo is discussed in detail. In the technical document, it is stated that current developments can be accessed through GitLab and that the MVP and the OP will be “Open Source to anyone in the community interested in the solutions”, but this content is not directly available through the company website. There is a lack of clarity with respect to the role and level of involvement of advisors.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The organization heavily criticizes the current scientific publications economic model and refers to it as the “triple-pay” system (governments fund research which are evaluated by (paid) editors and then the product is sold back to government-funded institutions).
An outline of the organization’s strategy is outlined as follows:

– Break publication cost barriers
– Improve knowledge dissemination
– Support research
– Enhance R&D collaboration frameworks
– Open source development

Most components are discussed without providing specific detail, but the overall outline of the company’s growth strategy is provided, nonetheless. Token economics are outlined qualitatively.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The document outlining the technical architecture of the platform gives specific details with regards to the organization’s technical development and implementation strategy. There is thorough discussion provided with regards to the MVP/demo which is can be accessed through the company website. The architecture of the MVP is presented with a discussion of the services that are used (various AWS cloud technologies) for the technology infrastructure.

In the technical document, it is mentioned that there is a “Blockchain chapter”. However, a specific section outlining blockchain technology is not evident. The majority of the technical discussion does not pertain to blockchain technology.

A few times throughout the whitepaper, the organization claims that it will utilize decentralized data storage, but when assessing the specific information presented regarding decentralized architecture in the whitepaper, details are lacking. Only vague/generic descriptions of the IPFS protocol is included. It is stated that “BLOB files which contain persistent user data (accounts, comments, likes, etc.) is planned to be stored via decentralized solutions such as IPFS (main option), Swarm, Sia and Storj. This aspect of the platform is discussed in broad terms and an evaluation of competing solutions is not presented.

The organization’s plan for data analytics is also outlined which include possible data sources (blockchain transactions, existing literature, research and publication relationship, and user data) as well as the necessary architecture (Hadoop & Spark – Amazon EMR, Apache Kafka & Amazon Kinesis).

Overall, the level of technical detail provided is higher compared to most projects, but more content could be provided with respect to blockchain technology and decentralized architecture.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: The document outlining the terms and conditions is fairly thorough and spans approximately 17 pages. The document is written professionally and discusses the KYC procedure, risk factors, and disclaimers pertaining to the platform and token sale.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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.

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

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic. Specific technical information and considerations of design and implementation are discussed.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.
Documentation Score:
3.8

Product

Differentiation: The benefits of the platform are outlined as follows:
– Optimal Publication Costs
– Continuous and Transparent Peer Reviews
– Multi-Authors Peer Reviews
– Recognition and Reward of Peer Reviewers
– Zero-Delay Publication
– Full Life Cycle Traceability
– Support for Manuscript Versioning
– Research Data and Process is Available
– Custom Copyright and User Licenses
– Decentralized Journals

The platform reduces costs while empowering scientists and facilitates a more free market when compared to the current system.

Readiness: An MVP and the an early version of the platform are available on the company website and according to the technical document, the code is available on GitLab upon request.

Concreteness of Development Plans: Thus far, the organization has primarily conceputalized the ecostem, assembled the team, and developed the prototype. Milestones project up until 2020.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has primarily conceptualized the ecosystem, assembled the team, and developed the prototype. Milestones project up until 2020. Development plans are evident based on the milestones set out in the roadmap.

Feasiblity: Thus far, the organization seems to have met major milestones set out on the roadmap. The team is quite large and seemingly capable, thus in combination with the fact that the team have already developed working (demonstration) product, this indicates that the feasibility of the milestones set out in the near future are reasonable.

Blockchain Innovation: The organization plans to implement blockchain technology into the platform but that platform/ecosystem itself does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Blockchain Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
3.0

Market

Target User Base: The platform is targeted towards researchers, scientists, and those that would be interested in their research (readers and institutions).

Market Penetration Potential: The problem with the centralized nature of the current scientific publication system is outlined clearly. Orvium plans to address current market inefficiencies and with their focus on scientific publications, there is potential for the project to gain considerable market share.

Direct Competition: There are a few blockchain-focused projects that to target the publication/authorship sector.

– Globex SCI
– Po.et
– Publica
– Authorship
– DECENT

Solution Advantage: Manuscripts will be submitted to the platform (with the option to stake ORV tokens) in order to create a proof-of-existence and authorship which is stored on the (Ethereum) blockchain. It is stated that “user licensing is completely determined by the authors or owner”. Compared to similar projects, Orvium is specifically targeting the scientific publication sector.

Blockchain Disruption: The use of blockchain technology outlined in the whitepaper mainly pertain to the open/transparent nature of the technology. The scientific publication sector is largely centralized, and as a result, the potential for disruption with the implementation of blockchain technology is evident.

Long-Term Vision: The organization intends to become “the leading publication platform for the research community”. With respect to the technical infrastructure, the organization addresses the fact that current solutions are at the early stages of development (however, specific content with regards to decentralized architecture is minimal). The long-term vision of the organization is also evident based on the future projection of development outlined in the roadmap. The project has a targeted focus and addresses major market inefficiencies with the current system.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - The notion of gaining hold over a significant share of the market is not unreasonable.
Direct Competition

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Blockchain Disruption

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Long-Term Vision

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.
Market Score:
3.3

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Based on the company’s LinkedIn page, Orvium is a publicly-held organization that was founded in 2018 and are based in Tallin, Condado de Harju. It is not clear whether the team has received significant levels of funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 3 team members and 21 advisors (6 scientific advisors, 7 business strategy advisors, and 9 technical advisors) is presented on the company website (only 7 technical advisors are shown in the whitepaper). The team structure is outlined in the whitepaper as follows: Founders Manuel Martin | Senior Project Leader and Blockchain Expert Antonio Romero | Technology Solution Architect Roberto Rabasco | Application and Technology Expert Scientific Advisors Alberto Di Meglio | CERN openlab head Tom Soderstrom | IT Chief Technology Officer Chris Mattmann | Assoc. Chief Technology & Innovation Officer Jesús Villadangos | SCAMPI Lead Appraiser Candidate & Professor Nico Orce | Nuclear physics and nuclear astrophysics Miguel Angel | Professor and Head of Transport & Logistics Business Strategy Advisors Bernd Lapp | Advisor to Blockchain Nicolai Oster | Head of ICO Christopher Tucci | Chair in Corporate Strategy & Innovation Franco Alfami | Director of Innovation Davide Gallo | Manager of Partners Ecosystem Ruben Garcia | Marketing Expert Marek Herm | Attorney at Law & Tax Counsel Tech Advisors Jose Carlos Luna | Computing Engineer & Security Expert Marc Magrans | Computing Engineer & Economist Ignacio Coterillo | Database and Software Engineer Hector Valverde | Solution architect Raul Murillo | Software Engineer Carlos Ghabrous | Software Engineer Alejandro Iribarren | Computing Engineer & Storage Expert Rishi Verma | Software systems architect Jose Andres Cordero | Full Stack Software Engineer The level of involvement from advisors is uncertain. The subtitle presented with each team member at times indicate the role of the individual with respect to the project, and at other times, the subtitle merely outlines the team member’s credentials based off of prior work experience. As such, the number of team members that are fully committed to the project is uncertain. All 3 co-founders are concurrently involved with other projects, two of which are current employees at CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire AKA European Organization for Nuclear Research). The other co-founder is a contract software engineer and the Director of BooleanCloud, a software solution company. The majority of advisory team do not show their involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles. Only approximately 6 individuals are listed as employees of Orvium based on the company LinkedIn page.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is accompanied with a bio description and a linked to their LinkedIn profile. Two of the co-founders provide a significant amount of information with regards to their current roles at CERN. In comparison, most advisors provide much less content on their LinkediIn profile.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: One of the scientific advisors, Chris Mattmann, is specifically mentioned in the lightpaper and praised for being “NASA associated CTO and a very active and recognized figure by the open source community”. However, his involvement with the project is not disclosed on his LinkedIn page. The co-founders are tech oriented and have had notable experience developing software solutions regarding data analytics and infrastructure at CERN. Most of the technical advisory team are current employees at CERN.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team mostly consists of a team of technology oriented individuals, but there are a fair number of team members with skill sets that align with business development. There seems to be a lack of individuals with expertise with regards to blockchain development.

Strategic Partnerships: 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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:
2.5

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Authors can stake ORV tokens in order to encourage peer review of manuscripts uploaded to the platform. Reviewers are rewarded with these ORV tokens once their reviews have been accepted. It is stated that ORV tokens will be “used in each of the transactions which involves data that is not free”. If authors choose to utilize a paid licensing model then “journals and/or readers will have to pay for accessing, downloading, using or reproducing the content”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 379M ORV IT is stated that authors will be able to stake ORV tokens in order to encourage and challenge the community for peer reviews (staked ORV tokens can be claimed by reviewers after reviews have been accepted). ORV tokens are used for all transactions which involves data that is not free. Authors or researchers will be able to use a paid licensing model for their research, where readers will need to pay ORV tokens in order to access content. These tokens are sent directly to the author(s) and Orvium will receive a percentage of the transaction as commission (the transaction fee is not specified). Journal tokens (JTs) will also be used by DAJs and are obtained when ORV tokens are staked by participants of the DAJs. The license fee to operate the DAJ is not outlined in specific details. JTs used to access governance rules of the particular DAJ. The roles of different participants in the ecosystem (researchers, journal owner, individuals, insituions) are discussed with specific earn/spend mechanisms with respect to both JT and ORV tokens.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that all the software developed by Orvium will always be open-source and that “every single action, task, and transaction in the system (e.g., submissions of manuscripts, revisions, publications, peer reviews, citations checks, author acceptances) will be accessible to anyone”. The governance structure of the organization and the community-driven journals AKA decentralized autonomous journals (DAJs) are briefly outlined. Some aspects of the technological infrastructure are admittedly not fully decentralized at the current time: “Cloud solutions will support Orvium infrastructure requirements, which at the moment of this whitepaper, cannot be fully decentralized”. Although, it is stated that some aspects of the technical infrastructure may be initially developed using centralized solutions, the organization intends to “aim for [a] fully dApp ecosystem”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A Hard cap: $20MM USD The use of proceeds is not adequately described and thus, the raise goals seem unrelated to development plans.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented as follows: 40% – Develop 20% – Science & collaboration 15% – Operations and business dev 10% – R&D 10% – Marketing 5% – Legal & Financial Fund allocations are described quite vaguely. Further details are not specified.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the company website as follows: 60% – Token sale 20% – Orvium OÜ 10% – Team 10% – Advisors and partners The vesting schedule is outlined on the company website as follows: – Orvium OÜ: 3 years – 6 months cliff – Team: 3 years – 6 months cliff It is uncertain whether unsold tokens will be burned.

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Token Economics Score:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website