Reger Diamond

The natural white and fancy colored Diamonds as well as the jewelry will be a reliable and liquid asset to secure the investments and to ensure high returns.

About Reger Diamond

Reger Diamond aims to develop an cryptocurrency backed by diamonds. The organization will produce diamond jewelry, natural diamonds, and HPHT diamonds. RDC tokens will be used to purchase goods through the company at a discount of 10 to 20%. It is stated that tokens holders will receive accrual of interest made on a quarterly basis, as well as the principal amount after the expiration of the Smart Contract (12 months).

Token Economics Product

Documentation

3.3
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)?

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: There are multiple documents that are included on the company website including the whitepaper, the platform pitch, business plan, the terms of the token sale, and details of the KYC procedure. The whitepaper begins with a brief outline of definitions and the background information on the company. Market research regarding the diamond sector is presented and contains relevant data and statistics, but only some of which are provided with proper citation. The solution description mainly consists of an outline of the various types of diamonds that the organization will produce and the costs/equipment that will be required to produce it. Information regarding the specifications of the diamonds that the organization intends to sell are discussed throughly. It is unclear as to how tokens will be utilized from an investment perspective. It is stated that “”project initiators”” will return the principal amount to investors, yet tokens will be able to be used to purchase goods from the company at a discount of 10 to 20%. The business plan is discussed in a document which spans approximately 100 pages. The content is fairly through with respect to market research, fiscal projections, equipment description, marketing plans, etc, but discussion regarding value proposition of the token lacks detail. Bio descriptions of team members are presented on the company website and the whitepaper, but LinkedIn profiles are not provided. Many of the LinkedIn profiles of team members could not be found via manual search. The company GitHub page is not provided. Legal content is provided in the document outlining the terms and conditions of the token generation event.

Readability: The document is simple to read and not particularly technically oriented, thus is not obfuscated by technical terms.

Transparency: Shortcomings of the working with the diamond asset industry are discussed along with the challenges that are associated with using crypto-technology. However, the lack of information on the team and the organization is concerning. The information regarding token usage is also lacking.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Production projections are included in the whitepaper as follows: The annual production capacity in 2018 will be 24,000 carats (or 2,000 carats per month). Annual production capacity in 2019 and 2020 will make: 40,000 – 45,000 carat per year (or 3,300 – 3,800 carats per month). 3-year revenue projections are included in the whitepaper. Other success metrics are also included, such as NPV, IRR, and discounted payback period (4.5 months). It is stated that production will take place in Prague (Czech Republic). Total costs outlined in the whitepaper are presented with fairly high precision, but the organization does not provide a thorough breakdown of the costs. It is stated that production will be completed it two stages: 1. purchase/install production equipment 2. increase production turnover by acquiring and installing new production facilities while opening up sales centers and Jewelery stores in Dubai and Lugano, Switzerland. The business development plan in the whitepaper discusses the pricing strategy for various diamond types, a few brief statements regarding sales channels, and brief descriptions of various modules that will be implemented into the platform. The main attributes of the platform include sustainability, operations in crypto- and fiat currencies, and providing a flexible approach to business management. However, each of these aspects of discussed with low levels of detail. For example, it is stated that “”the diamonds made of them have high liquidity and make guaranteed added value in its market segment””. This is especially evident with the discussion on how cryptocurrency will be utilized by the organization: the organization claims to have “”provided a significant number of options (with the participation of payment systems, banks, and financial institutions) to provide reverse payments of the transition between crypto- and fiat currencies, which are again provided with a transparent scheme for the movement of the company’s assets and funds, both for investors and for external financial organizations””. Further discussion is not provided. Information regarding token economics is lacking. Token usage is outlined towards the end of the whitepaper. It is stated that “”RDC tokens will be used for settlements between participants on the Reger Diamond platform””. Token holders receive up to 20% of yearly dividends, of which accrual interest is made on a quarterly basis and the principal amount is returned after the expiration date of the Smart Contract (12 months). More details is desirable, as the exact token usage with respect to the platform is uncertain.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The discussion of the platform technology with regards to the use of blockchain technology is lacking. The information presented in the whitepaper focuses on discussing the technology of diamond production as opposed to blockchain development and implementation. The document discusses the use of HPTP (high pressure high temperature) technology, which “”to change the color, gentrification of “low quality” (brown) diamonds, thereby significantly increasing their market value””. This discussion regarding HPTP seems unnecessary to include in the whitepaper, as it is a fairly well-known practice in the diamond industry. Other technical content pertains to the technology utilized to produce diamonds as opposed to how blockchain technology will be implemented into the ecosystem.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal content is thoroughly discussed in the document outlining the terms and conditions of the token generation event. Risk factors are discussed appropriately. The document spans approximately 19 pages and is professionally written.

Documentation Market

Product

2.0
Product
Differentiation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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: RDC token will be used for settlements between participants on the platform. It is stated that “the option acquisition makes it possible to get the yield of up to 20% (approximate average future income per year); the obtained derivative RDC is, secured by a real high-demand asset, diamonds, and diamond products that in case of currency fluctuations “protected” by the value of constantly high quality liquid asset”.

Readiness: Although the company has been operational since 2009, the platform itself seems to be primarily an idea at this point in time based on publicly verifiable content.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website as follows: 4th Quarter 2017: RESEARCH – Research of the precious stones market and cryptocurrencies market for the integration of traditional business technologies with innovative solutions, incl. blockchain. – Definition of the main aspects of business strategy and writing a business-plan for ‘RegerDiamond’ project. 1st Quarter 2018: PRE-ICO – Determination of the applicability areas and feasibility study of the idea within the framework of an ICO project for the blockchain community. Preparation and drawing up of the necessary project documentation. – February. Consolidation of our own investment capital of $ 1.5 million to ensure the stability of the project during the period of preparation and on the start-up period. 2nd Quarter 2018: PRE-ICO – March-April. Creation of a stock of diamonds to secure the initial investment deposits at the time of the project-start and starting of commercial activities to achieve the previously defined goals and objectives. – May. Completion of the preparatory stage and preparation for the start of pre-sales within the framework of the crowdsale. – June. Start of a Pre-Sale. Special offer for first investors. 3rd Quarter 2018: ICO – July. The start of the main sales and the formation of the necessary volume of investments for the implementation of the goals and objectives defined in the business plan of the project. – August. Increase in the purchase of raw materials and increase the output of final products. Expansion of the geography of presence and sales networks. – September. The launch of our own CRM platform and the start of global trade through our own web store. Integration with leading online exchanges RAPAPORT, IDEX-Online, and others. 4th Quarter 2018: ICO – November-December. Completion of the crowdsale. Concentrating on the most important aspects of company’s business strategy – aggressive promotion of the presence of the company on the market along with increasing of a commercial turnover and marginality. Increasing the security level of the token and beginning of sales of the RDC cryptocurrency on the secondary market. – December and further Carrying out a balanced emission policy aimed at a steady growth of the RDC crypto currency rate. Near Future: POST-ICO – Main goal achievement: honored recognition by investors of our project as one of the best in the ICO market and one of the most successful in the market of diamonds and precious stones! Sufficient detail is provided for the milestones outlined in the roadmap. There seems to be a lack of technologically-focused milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most milestones pertain to the conceptualization of the platform. Much development is ahead, mostly in terms of the acquisition of equipment and the production of the products.

Feasiblity: There is a lack of information available with regards to the past history and credibility of the company. Furthermore, there is a lack of content available on the how tokens will be used. However, the project primarily entails raising funds from the token generation event, buying the necessary equipment and beginning production. The platform is not particularly complex, thus the goals set out in the roadmap seem fairly reasonable.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective. Tokens are utilized primarily to generate funds.

Product Company and Team

Market

2.2
Market
Target User Base

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Market

Target User Base: The target user base are those that are interested in diamond investments. More specifically, those who would like to get involved via diamond-backed tokens.

Market Penetration Potential: Market research is discussed thoroughly in the document specifying the organization’s business development plans. However, the use of blockchain technology does not fundamentally change the operation of the production/distribution of diamonds. Thus the platform does not have a particular competitive edge when compared to traditional (existing) diamond producing companies. Furthermore, the whitepaper does not adequately describe notable features that would sufficiently distinguish itself from similar projects. As such, market penetration will be somewhat difficult.

Direct Competition: Asset back cryptocurrencies are fairly popular, but the number if diamond backed cryptocurrency is somewhat limited. Potential (blockchain-based) competitors include:

– D1 Coin
– CARAT

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are not evident. The majority of the whitepaper discussed the different aspects of the different diamonds which will be produced by the organization, business development related content, and market research, but the solution description is lacking in detail and the advantages provided by the platform lack clarity.

Blockchain Disruption: The use of cryptocurrency, as described by the solution, does not seem to have high potential for disruption in the diamond industry. The token use case is described with low levels of detail.

Long-Term Vision: It seems as though the projected was developed in order to capitalize on the hype surrounding cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. This is evident with the vague purpose of the platform which is presented on the very first page of the whitepaper: the aim of this Project is to offer potential investors to carry out low-risk investment in the structure of business operating based on the principles of decentralization and use of blockchain technology providing investors with guarantees of safety and profitability on investment confirmed by real assets.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

1.5
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..."]).

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (many absent online profiles or hardly any information).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: According to the company’s LinkedIn page, the organization was founded in 2009. Publicly verifiable information is limited.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 7 individuals are presented in the whitepaper along with 4 advisors. The team structure is presented as follows:

VLADISLAV REGER – Visioner, co-founder and CEO.
ALEXEY LEBEDEV – Co-founder and commercial director.
MILTON PAPADOPOULOS – Head of cyprus office.
ILGIZ BAYRAMGULOV – Technical director.
ANDREY BOGDANOV – IT director.
OLEKSII MATVIIENKO – Manufacturing director.
MARCOS KONSTANTINOU – Information technology manager.

YULIA ZYKOVA | Investment adviser
CHARLES ZIEGLER | Adviser
MASSIMO COVA | Adviser, jewelery manufacturer
MARINA GRIGNOLIO |Adviser, jewelery manufacturer.

The LinkedIn profiles of most team members (that were found) do not show involvement with the project. As a result, commitment to the project is uncertain. There is a section of the website that indicates that the organization is currently looking to hire more people.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is presented with a short bio description. LinkedIn profiles are not provided in the whitepaper or the company website. When attempting to find the LinkedIn profiles for lead team member via manual search, many of the profiles could not be found, including the CEO/co-founder.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Relevance of team member’s previous experience cannot be adequately assessed due to the lack of information available either because the team member’s LinkedIn profile could not be found via manual search, or the individual did not provide enough information regarding past work experience to assess its relevance with the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The skill set balance of the team could not be assessed sufficiently due to the lack of information available on team members.

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

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

1.8
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
Token Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: RDC tokens can be used to buy the company’s products at a discount of 10-20%. Token holders are entitled (10 months after the ICO) to purchasing physical goods through the organization at a discount of 10 to 20%. In the document which outlines the terms of the token generation event, it is stated that “multi-functionality of RDC Tokens will be disclosed once the platform will be designed and fully functional with a respect to any challenges to its use”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 21.5 million RDC
1 RDC = $1 USD

Token economics are not discussed adequately in the whitepaper.

System Decentralization (besides token): Organization/platform governance is not outlined and decentralization does not seem to be a guiding principle of the organization. There is a section of the whitepaper that outlines the company’s philosophy/values and decentralization is not emphasized. In the document which outlines token issuance, it is explicitly stated that “since holders of the tokens are not owners of the Project or the company that implements it, they will not be able to directly participate in its management or vote for making a specific decision”.

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

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is described in terms of the costs of assets. However, a clear breakdown of the proportion of funds which will be allocated to particular categories is not outlined.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented on the company website as follows:

45% – Reserve
35% – Public offering
10% – Project team members
10% – Consultants and advisors

Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned. The use of tokens allocated to the reserve fund is not sufficiently described.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: There are multiple documents that are included on the company website including the whitepaper, the platform pitch, business plan, the terms of the token sale, and details of the KYC procedure. The whitepaper begins with a brief outline of definitions and the background information on the company. Market research regarding the diamond sector is presented and contains relevant data and statistics, but only some of which are provided with proper citation. The solution description mainly consists of an outline of the various types of diamonds that the organization will produce and the costs/equipment that will be required to produce it. Information regarding the specifications of the diamonds that the organization intends to sell are discussed throughly. It is unclear as to how tokens will be utilized from an investment perspective. It is stated that “”project initiators”” will return the principal amount to investors, yet tokens will be able to be used to purchase goods from the company at a discount of 10 to 20%. The business plan is discussed in a document which spans approximately 100 pages. The content is fairly through with respect to market research, fiscal projections, equipment description, marketing plans, etc, but discussion regarding value proposition of the token lacks detail. Bio descriptions of team members are presented on the company website and the whitepaper, but LinkedIn profiles are not provided. Many of the LinkedIn profiles of team members could not be found via manual search. The company GitHub page is not provided. Legal content is provided in the document outlining the terms and conditions of the token generation event.

Readability: The document is simple to read and not particularly technically oriented, thus is not obfuscated by technical terms.

Transparency: Shortcomings of the working with the diamond asset industry are discussed along with the challenges that are associated with using crypto-technology. However, the lack of information on the team and the organization is concerning. The information regarding token usage is also lacking.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Production projections are included in the whitepaper as follows: The annual production capacity in 2018 will be 24,000 carats (or 2,000 carats per month). Annual production capacity in 2019 and 2020 will make: 40,000 – 45,000 carat per year (or 3,300 – 3,800 carats per month). 3-year revenue projections are included in the whitepaper. Other success metrics are also included, such as NPV, IRR, and discounted payback period (4.5 months). It is stated that production will take place in Prague (Czech Republic). Total costs outlined in the whitepaper are presented with fairly high precision, but the organization does not provide a thorough breakdown of the costs. It is stated that production will be completed it two stages: 1. purchase/install production equipment 2. increase production turnover by acquiring and installing new production facilities while opening up sales centers and Jewelery stores in Dubai and Lugano, Switzerland. The business development plan in the whitepaper discusses the pricing strategy for various diamond types, a few brief statements regarding sales channels, and brief descriptions of various modules that will be implemented into the platform. The main attributes of the platform include sustainability, operations in crypto- and fiat currencies, and providing a flexible approach to business management. However, each of these aspects of discussed with low levels of detail. For example, it is stated that “”the diamonds made of them have high liquidity and make guaranteed added value in its market segment””. This is especially evident with the discussion on how cryptocurrency will be utilized by the organization: the organization claims to have “”provided a significant number of options (with the participation of payment systems, banks, and financial institutions) to provide reverse payments of the transition between crypto- and fiat currencies, which are again provided with a transparent scheme for the movement of the company’s assets and funds, both for investors and for external financial organizations””. Further discussion is not provided. Information regarding token economics is lacking. Token usage is outlined towards the end of the whitepaper. It is stated that “”RDC tokens will be used for settlements between participants on the Reger Diamond platform””. Token holders receive up to 20% of yearly dividends, of which accrual interest is made on a quarterly basis and the principal amount is returned after the expiration date of the Smart Contract (12 months). More details is desirable, as the exact token usage with respect to the platform is uncertain.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The discussion of the platform technology with regards to the use of blockchain technology is lacking. The information presented in the whitepaper focuses on discussing the technology of diamond production as opposed to blockchain development and implementation. The document discusses the use of HPTP (high pressure high temperature) technology, which “”to change the color, gentrification of “low quality” (brown) diamonds, thereby significantly increasing their market value””. This discussion regarding HPTP seems unnecessary to include in the whitepaper, as it is a fairly well-known practice in the diamond industry. Other technical content pertains to the technology utilized to produce diamonds as opposed to how blockchain technology will be implemented into the ecosystem.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Legal content is thoroughly discussed in the document outlining the terms and conditions of the token generation event. Risk factors are discussed appropriately. The document spans approximately 19 pages and is professionally written.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional legal documents are provided, project employs professional legal counsel and financial auditing services.
Documentation Score:
3.3

Product

Differentiation: RDC token will be used for settlements between participants on the platform. It is stated that “the option acquisition makes it possible to get the yield of up to 20% (approximate average future income per year); the obtained derivative RDC is, secured by a real high-demand asset, diamonds, and diamond products that in case of currency fluctuations “protected” by the value of constantly high quality liquid asset”.

Readiness: Although the company has been operational since 2009, the platform itself seems to be primarily an idea at this point in time based on publicly verifiable content.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website as follows: 4th Quarter 2017: RESEARCH – Research of the precious stones market and cryptocurrencies market for the integration of traditional business technologies with innovative solutions, incl. blockchain. – Definition of the main aspects of business strategy and writing a business-plan for ‘RegerDiamond’ project. 1st Quarter 2018: PRE-ICO – Determination of the applicability areas and feasibility study of the idea within the framework of an ICO project for the blockchain community. Preparation and drawing up of the necessary project documentation. – February. Consolidation of our own investment capital of $ 1.5 million to ensure the stability of the project during the period of preparation and on the start-up period. 2nd Quarter 2018: PRE-ICO – March-April. Creation of a stock of diamonds to secure the initial investment deposits at the time of the project-start and starting of commercial activities to achieve the previously defined goals and objectives. – May. Completion of the preparatory stage and preparation for the start of pre-sales within the framework of the crowdsale. – June. Start of a Pre-Sale. Special offer for first investors. 3rd Quarter 2018: ICO – July. The start of the main sales and the formation of the necessary volume of investments for the implementation of the goals and objectives defined in the business plan of the project. – August. Increase in the purchase of raw materials and increase the output of final products. Expansion of the geography of presence and sales networks. – September. The launch of our own CRM platform and the start of global trade through our own web store. Integration with leading online exchanges RAPAPORT, IDEX-Online, and others. 4th Quarter 2018: ICO – November-December. Completion of the crowdsale. Concentrating on the most important aspects of company’s business strategy – aggressive promotion of the presence of the company on the market along with increasing of a commercial turnover and marginality. Increasing the security level of the token and beginning of sales of the RDC cryptocurrency on the secondary market. – December and further Carrying out a balanced emission policy aimed at a steady growth of the RDC crypto currency rate. Near Future: POST-ICO – Main goal achievement: honored recognition by investors of our project as one of the best in the ICO market and one of the most successful in the market of diamonds and precious stones! Sufficient detail is provided for the milestones outlined in the roadmap. There seems to be a lack of technologically-focused milestones.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most milestones pertain to the conceptualization of the platform. Much development is ahead, mostly in terms of the acquisition of equipment and the production of the products.

Feasiblity: There is a lack of information available with regards to the past history and credibility of the company. Furthermore, there is a lack of content available on the how tokens will be used. However, the project primarily entails raising funds from the token generation event, buying the necessary equipment and beginning production. The platform is not particularly complex, thus the goals set out in the roadmap seem fairly reasonable.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective. Tokens are utilized primarily to generate funds.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Blockchain Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
2.0

Market

Target User Base: The target user base are those that are interested in diamond investments. More specifically, those who would like to get involved via diamond-backed tokens.

Market Penetration Potential: Market research is discussed thoroughly in the document specifying the organization’s business development plans. However, the use of blockchain technology does not fundamentally change the operation of the production/distribution of diamonds. Thus the platform does not have a particular competitive edge when compared to traditional (existing) diamond producing companies. Furthermore, the whitepaper does not adequately describe notable features that would sufficiently distinguish itself from similar projects. As such, market penetration will be somewhat difficult.

Direct Competition: Asset back cryptocurrencies are fairly popular, but the number if diamond backed cryptocurrency is somewhat limited. Potential (blockchain-based) competitors include:

– D1 Coin
– CARAT

Solution Advantage: Notable advantages of the platform are not evident. The majority of the whitepaper discussed the different aspects of the different diamonds which will be produced by the organization, business development related content, and market research, but the solution description is lacking in detail and the advantages provided by the platform lack clarity.

Blockchain Disruption: The use of cryptocurrency, as described by the solution, does not seem to have high potential for disruption in the diamond industry. The token use case is described with low levels of detail.

Long-Term Vision: It seems as though the projected was developed in order to capitalize on the hype surrounding cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. This is evident with the vague purpose of the platform which is presented on the very first page of the whitepaper: the aim of this Project is to offer potential investors to carry out low-risk investment in the structure of business operating based on the principles of decentralization and use of blockchain technology providing investors with guarantees of safety and profitability on investment confirmed by real assets.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors (e.g., 7-10, some further ahead). Blockchain solutions are trendy in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: According to the company’s LinkedIn page, the organization was founded in 2009. Publicly verifiable information is limited.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 7 individuals are presented in the whitepaper along with 4 advisors. The team structure is presented as follows:

VLADISLAV REGER – Visioner, co-founder and CEO.
ALEXEY LEBEDEV – Co-founder and commercial director.
MILTON PAPADOPOULOS – Head of cyprus office.
ILGIZ BAYRAMGULOV – Technical director.
ANDREY BOGDANOV – IT director.
OLEKSII MATVIIENKO – Manufacturing director.
MARCOS KONSTANTINOU – Information technology manager.

YULIA ZYKOVA | Investment adviser
CHARLES ZIEGLER | Adviser
MASSIMO COVA | Adviser, jewelery manufacturer
MARINA GRIGNOLIO |Adviser, jewelery manufacturer.

The LinkedIn profiles of most team members (that were found) do not show involvement with the project. As a result, commitment to the project is uncertain. There is a section of the website that indicates that the organization is currently looking to hire more people.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is presented with a short bio description. LinkedIn profiles are not provided in the whitepaper or the company website. When attempting to find the LinkedIn profiles for lead team member via manual search, many of the profiles could not be found, including the CEO/co-founder.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Relevance of team member’s previous experience cannot be adequately assessed due to the lack of information available either because the team member’s LinkedIn profile could not be found via manual search, or the individual did not provide enough information regarding past work experience to assess its relevance with the project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The skill set balance of the team could not be assessed sufficiently due to the lack of information available on team members.

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

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (many absent online profiles or hardly any information).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
1.5

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: RDC tokens can be used to buy the company’s products at a discount of 10-20%. Token holders are entitled (10 months after the ICO) to purchasing physical goods through the organization at a discount of 10 to 20%. In the document which outlines the terms of the token generation event, it is stated that “multi-functionality of RDC Tokens will be disclosed once the platform will be designed and fully functional with a respect to any challenges to its use”.

Token Economy: Total supply: 21.5 million RDC
1 RDC = $1 USD

Token economics are not discussed adequately in the whitepaper.

System Decentralization (besides token): Organization/platform governance is not outlined and decentralization does not seem to be a guiding principle of the organization. There is a section of the whitepaper that outlines the company’s philosophy/values and decentralization is not emphasized. In the document which outlines token issuance, it is explicitly stated that “since holders of the tokens are not owners of the Project or the company that implements it, they will not be able to directly participate in its management or vote for making a specific decision”.

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

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is described in terms of the costs of assets. However, a clear breakdown of the proportion of funds which will be allocated to particular categories is not outlined.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented on the company website as follows:

45% – Reserve
35% – Public offering
10% – Project team members
10% – Consultants and advisors

Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and it is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned. The use of tokens allocated to the reserve fund is not sufficiently described.

 

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
Token Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
1.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website