Tip Blockchain

Short usernames as smart addresses, search and find other users by usernames, cryptocurrency point of sale system for businesses - all built on the 1st indexed and fully searchable blockchain.

About Tip Blockchain

Tip blockchain aims to simplify the process of utilizing cryptocurrency. The platform aims to implement human readable addresses, decentralized storage, a POS application, and a peer-to-peer dApp. It is emphasized that Tip blockchain is not simply a wallet or a system for processing crypto payments, but a “decentralized ecosystem where businesses and users can discover new ways of interacting with each other using the insights from offline transaction data”. It is stated that the organization will use TIP (which fluctuates with respect to the TIP ecosystem) and TS (stable coins which can only be purchased with TIP tokens). TIP tokens are used as a means of exchange between peers, access to services on the platform, as well as a reward and voting tool.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.8
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
Transparency

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Two primary documents are provided on the company website: the whitepaper and a document outlining the growth and implementation strategy, as well as competitor analysis. The whitepaper begins with the problem statement which is fairly short and is approximately one page in length. The problem statement outlines the issues with regards to the current usability issues with regards to cryptocurrency transactions. A few potential competitors are discussed in the whitepaper and additional competitors are evaluated fairly throughly in the strategy paper. The technical discussion is fairly limited considering that the company plans to develop their own blockchain. Token economics is fairly thorough, but some aspects lack clarity. The GitHub page can be found and contains a repository for the token sale contracts and a repository for automation tools for their Telegram channel. Legal content is brief, but is presented in the whitepaper and the strategy paper.

Readability: The document is simple to read, but critical aspects of the platform are not included in the whitepaper and are only briefly discussed in the strategy paper. For example, there is a lack of clarity with respect to the dual token model.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. In the roadmap is stated that a prototype has been developed “to prove the viability of our platform” and can be found here: https://projects.invisionapp.com/share/CBJ2AGKWHFQ#/292165257. However, the functionality of the prototype is uncertain. It seems to be merely a wireframe. Various competitors are discussed but the level of detail provided with respect to how the platform differentiates itself from similar projects is limited.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Specific details are provided for most aspects of the token economy. It is stated that “transaction fees on Tip will be 0.1% – 0.2% for most transactions”. Details of the token economics are fairly thorough. The development strategy is thoroughly outlined in the strategy document. However, strategy in which the company will address volatility is unclear. The discussion regarding the dual token model in the strategy paper seems to erroneously use TIP instead of TS (the ecosystem’s stable coin).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There is a brief section which describes IPFS. The discussion is fairly generic and is not adequately describe to how the organization specifically plans to utilize the technology. Specific details with regards to what the organization plans for their blockchain solution are not outlined. The differences between the platform developed on the Ethereum blockchain and their own blockchain solution is discussed vaguely. Other aspects of the ecosystem (decentralized storage, peer-to-peer messaging, POS, etc.) also lack detail. Overall the technical discussed of the platform mainly pertains to what the organization wishes to achieve in terms of features, but does not specifically discuss technical details and considerations.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: A very brief legal disclaimer is included towards the beginning of the whitepaper.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.3
Product
Differentiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

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

Product

Differentiation: An outline of the different features provided by Tip Blockchain are outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

– Human-friendly Addresses
– Transaction Metadata
– Discovery
– Peer to Peer Instant Messaging
– Point-of-Sale System

Each aspect of the platform is discussed with fairly low levels of detail (approximately 4-6 sentences). Throughout the whitepaper, it is stated that the platform “leverages data generated from user transactions to discovery insights and opportunities in the real world”. However, this aspect of the platform not discussed with great detail.

Readiness: The organization has conceptualized the platform and have developed an application wireframe. Critical obstacles are ahead as the company plans to develop their wallet with peer-to-peer messaging functionality, a POS solution, and their own blockchain.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website as follows:

NOV 2017: INCEPTION
After research into the usability of cryptocurrencies, the Tip Blockchain team conceived the idea of discovery on the blockchain and its many applications as the catalyst for mass user adoption. An idea was born!
FEB 2018: Development of TIP App Prototype
The team began working on creating functional prototypes to prove the viability of our platform.
JUN 2018: TIP Token Distribution Begins
Tip will be holding a token sale as well as bounty programs to distribute our tokens to our community. The seed round will run for 15 days, followed by a 1-week presale, and 4-week crowdsale.
JUL 2018: WALLET AND MESSAGING APP PRIVATE BETA
Members of the Tip community can sign up to check out the platform. Users will be able to find people by username and send TIP via instant messages.
AUG 2018: WALLET AND MESSAGING APP PUBLIC BETA
We will open up beta testing so that more users can get a hands-on experience of using our revolutionary crypto wallet and instant messaging app.
NOV 2018: INSTANT MESSAGING WALLET APP RELEASE
After months of extensive development and testing, the Kasakasa crypto wallet and the instant messaging app will be ready for primetime. Discover users and businesses on the platform, and send crypto using friendly usernames.
JAN 2019: CLOSED BETA OF POINT OF SALE SYSTEM
Development and consultation with our business partners culminates in opening up our platform to select businesses, so they can start using the Sika point of sale system to accept crypto payments.
APR 2019: TIP BLOCKCHAIN TESTNET LAUNCH
The messaging and point of sale applications switch over to using the Tip Blockchain testnet. Beta testing will be open to the public to try out our new 3rd gen blockchain.
AUG 2019: RELEASE OF SIKA POINT OF SALE SYSTEM
Merchants all over the world will be able to easily integrate Tip crypto payments into their existing payment flow.
FEB 2020: LAUNCH OF TIP NETWORK MAIN NET
The discovery enabled Tip Network chain goes live. Sika and Kasakasa will be ported over to using the Tip main net and data migrated to IPFS. ERC20 tokens will be swapped for main net tokens at a 1-to-1 rate.

Major milestones are presented. Most of the descriptions provided do not provide much additional detail beyond what is already communicated with the title of the milestone.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has primarily conceptualized the platform. It does not seem as though technical notable milestones have been reached.

Feasiblity: The development of the private beta is uncertain. The code for the platform is not hosted on GitHub and the code cannot be assessed. Only a wireframe of the application is available. As such, the development of the beta version of the platform in July 2018 (the time the review was written) is uncertain. Furthermore, the lack of information regarding the Tip Blockchain indicates that the feasibility of the organization releasing a a testnet for “new 3rd gen blockchain” by April 2019 seems unlikely when considering the team skill set and the lack of notable achievements that the organization has achieved thus far.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation with respect to blockchain technology. The platform will be initially developed on the Ethereum blockchain and will be migrated to the organization’s own blockchain solution. However, the details of the company’s plan for the development and capabilities of their own blockchain is significantly lacking,

 

Product Company and Team

Market

2.3
Market
Target User Base

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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 demographic for the platform is the mass market. The company aims to develop a product that increases the adoption of cryptocurrency.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration is unlikely. There are many competitors within this sector of blockchain-projects and the organization does not adequately describe the differentiating features of the platform.

Direct Competition: There are a number of similar projects that would be considered potential competitors to Tip Blockchain. The strategy outlines a number of potential competitors:

– Dether
– Toshi
– Status
– Dash
– Circle
– STK
– Carry Protocol
– MobileCoin
– Pundi X
– Chat Coin

Other competitors include:
– ENS: Ethereum Name Service
– Status Network
– KIN: Kik Network Token
– Telegram
– IOV

Solution Advantage: The three attributes of the platform that are stated to differentiate it from potential competitors are outlined in the strategy paper as follows: adoption, volatility, and discovery. Repeated throughout the comparisons with potential competitors in the strategy paper is the fact that “TIP leverages data generated from user transactions to discovery insights and opportunities in the real world” and that the company plans on “creating a offline ecosystem fueled by discovery of metadata”. However, these aspects of the platform lack detail. Pundi X seems to be the organization’s most direct competitor. In the strategy paper, there is nothing outlined in the comparison which would differentiate the project from Pundi X.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, disruption seems unlikely due to the lack of details provided with regards to the main components of the platform. The utilization of human readable addresses is evidently beneficial, but the platform as a whole seems to lack focus.

Long-Term Vision: There is a brief section (4 sentences) in the whitepaper that outlines the long-term vision of the organization. The organization wishes to become fully decentralized and develop their own blockchain which supports native indexing and searching. The long-term vision of the platform from a technical perspective is uncertain.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

1.8
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..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

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

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

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

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: Information on the organization is limited. Based on the company LinkedIn page, the privately-held company was founded in 2018 and are based in Toronto, Canada. It is unclear whether the organization has raised significant levels of funds.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 9 individuals and 8 advisors are presented on the company website. The team structure is presented on the company website as follows: John Warmann | Founder and CEO Garlam Won | Chief Strategist Walter Pareja | Head of Information Security Carolyn Jiang | Community Manager Supul Amarookan | Product Manager Hassan Qureshi | Head of UX Design Victor Guedes | Full Stack Developer Yeonsuk Kim | UX/UI Design Intern Ahmad Dewanto Choirul Huda | Campaign Manager Jasper Hellman | Marketing Advisor Benoît Morelli | Chief Advisor Carl Nunez | Investment Advisor David Sabo | Token Advisor Mitchell VerVoort | Legal Advisor Jared Polites | Marketing Advisor Andrew DeLuna | Strategic Advisor Miikka Saloseutu | Strategic Marketing Advisor Most team members show thier involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles. There seems to be a lack of team members with a technical position, especially considering that the company plans to develop their own blockchain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is presented with a short bio description and a link to their LinkedIn profile. When assessing the LinkedIn profile of the CEO/founder, the level of information presented with regards to their current responsibilities and prior work experience is limited. There is a lack of information presented on the profiles of those with a technical role/background (the CEO, and the full-stack developer).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The CEO was previously a senior mobile app developer and the founder of LocalizeWiz (localization service provider) and Cell Innovation Inc (mobile software solution company). The team primarily possesses individuals with experience with (mobile) application development.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team skill set seems heavily skewed towards business development. There are a lack of individuals with a technical role considering the scope of the project. Team members that possess extensive blockchain technology development is not evident.

Strategic Partnerships: There are some notable organization listed as partners on the company website such as: – Bancor – Bounty0x – Trustroot The level of involvement from these organizations are not clear. Even in a post (https://medium.com/trustroot/what-does-tip-blockchain-and-trustroot-partnership-mean-db8afdc18447) which attempts to outline the meaning of the partnership between Trustroot and Tip Blockchain, how the organization will be involved with the development of the project is not clear. The only involvement with Bounty0x seems to be a single interview (via podcast) can be found here: https://shows.pippa.io/bounty0x-podcast/episode-8-tipblockchainio.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.7
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

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.

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).

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
Token Allocation

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

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

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: In the strategy paper, it is stated that TIP and the ecosystem will be used as a:
– One-stop-shop platform where both users and businesses can easily transact in crypto without leaving the platform
– Discovery blockchain where businesses can translate the nuanced purchase behavior of users into an opportunity

The details of the stable coin (TS) are lacking. However, the justifcation for developing a custom token is justifiable.

Token Economy: It is stated that “the total amount of TIP that can exist is limited to the current market cap of TIP”. How this will be accomplished is uncertain, since [Market Cap] = [Coin Price] x [Coin Supply]. Coin supply is required to determine market cap. Additionally, this contradicts the information presented on the company website, which states that the total supply will be 1,000,000,000 TIP.

Other details of the token economics is outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

Full Nodes: 99 Delegates
Block Time: 9 seconds
Block Reward: 24 TIP (decreasing by 4 TIP every year or 3,504,000 blocks)
Transactions per second: 1,000, scale up to 8,000
Blocks per day: 9600
Token Emission: 230,400/day or 84,096,000 year 1 (8.4%)
Tokens per delegate: 849,454 (Year 1)

It is stated that: The TIP emission rate will be 24 TIP per block in year 1. This translates to 84,096,000 for the first year, or an 8.4% annual emission rate.

There is a lack of clarity with respect to the platform’s dual token model. The entirety of the discussion regarding the stable coin is contained in approximately half a page of written content which can be found in the strategy document.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that the organization will “use a hybrid model of decentralized network and apps, and centralized database to solve the problem of discovery in the short term” and will utilize a “distributed off-chain database which will provide the name registration, indexing, and querying of information”. During the initial release, decentralization will not be a core aspect of the platform. The consensus protocol is briefly outlined in the whitepaper: the Tip Blockchain ecosystem will utilize a delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS) consensus protocol. The centralized aspects of the platform are adequately justified.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A
Hard cap: 46,450 ETH

The use of proceeds is not described adequately enough to justify the fairly high hard cap of the token sale.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented on the company website as follows:

45% – Research and Development
25% – Marketing & Business Development
17% – Operations
8% – Miscellaneous & Unexpected costs
5% – Legal

Further details as to how funds will be utilized is not outlined thoroughly.

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

60% – Token sale
17% – Company reserve
10% – Team
8% – Bounties
5% – Advisors

The use of the company reserve is not thoroughly discussed.

Vesting schedules are outlined as follows:
Tip Employees: 2 years, linear vesting with a 6 month cliff.
Advisors: 1 year, linear vesting with a 6 month cliff.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Two primary documents are provided on the company website: the whitepaper and a document outlining the growth and implementation strategy, as well as competitor analysis. The whitepaper begins with the problem statement which is fairly short and is approximately one page in length. The problem statement outlines the issues with regards to the current usability issues with regards to cryptocurrency transactions. A few potential competitors are discussed in the whitepaper and additional competitors are evaluated fairly throughly in the strategy paper. The technical discussion is fairly limited considering that the company plans to develop their own blockchain. Token economics is fairly thorough, but some aspects lack clarity. The GitHub page can be found and contains a repository for the token sale contracts and a repository for automation tools for their Telegram channel. Legal content is brief, but is presented in the whitepaper and the strategy paper.

Readability: The document is simple to read, but critical aspects of the platform are not included in the whitepaper and are only briefly discussed in the strategy paper. For example, there is a lack of clarity with respect to the dual token model.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not adequately discussed. In the roadmap is stated that a prototype has been developed “to prove the viability of our platform” and can be found here: https://projects.invisionapp.com/share/CBJ2AGKWHFQ#/292165257. However, the functionality of the prototype is uncertain. It seems to be merely a wireframe. Various competitors are discussed but the level of detail provided with respect to how the platform differentiates itself from similar projects is limited.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Specific details are provided for most aspects of the token economy. It is stated that “transaction fees on Tip will be 0.1% – 0.2% for most transactions”. Details of the token economics are fairly thorough. The development strategy is thoroughly outlined in the strategy document. However, strategy in which the company will address volatility is unclear. The discussion regarding the dual token model in the strategy paper seems to erroneously use TIP instead of TS (the ecosystem’s stable coin).

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There is a brief section which describes IPFS. The discussion is fairly generic and is not adequately describe to how the organization specifically plans to utilize the technology. Specific details with regards to what the organization plans for their blockchain solution are not outlined. The differences between the platform developed on the Ethereum blockchain and their own blockchain solution is discussed vaguely. Other aspects of the ecosystem (decentralized storage, peer-to-peer messaging, POS, etc.) also lack detail. Overall the technical discussed of the platform mainly pertains to what the organization wishes to achieve in terms of features, but does not specifically discuss technical details and considerations.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: A very brief legal disclaimer is included towards the beginning of the whitepaper.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
Transparency

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

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.8

Product

Differentiation: An outline of the different features provided by Tip Blockchain are outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

– Human-friendly Addresses
– Transaction Metadata
– Discovery
– Peer to Peer Instant Messaging
– Point-of-Sale System

Each aspect of the platform is discussed with fairly low levels of detail (approximately 4-6 sentences). Throughout the whitepaper, it is stated that the platform “leverages data generated from user transactions to discovery insights and opportunities in the real world”. However, this aspect of the platform not discussed with great detail.

Readiness: The organization has conceptualized the platform and have developed an application wireframe. Critical obstacles are ahead as the company plans to develop their wallet with peer-to-peer messaging functionality, a POS solution, and their own blockchain.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented on the company website as follows:

NOV 2017: INCEPTION
After research into the usability of cryptocurrencies, the Tip Blockchain team conceived the idea of discovery on the blockchain and its many applications as the catalyst for mass user adoption. An idea was born!
FEB 2018: Development of TIP App Prototype
The team began working on creating functional prototypes to prove the viability of our platform.
JUN 2018: TIP Token Distribution Begins
Tip will be holding a token sale as well as bounty programs to distribute our tokens to our community. The seed round will run for 15 days, followed by a 1-week presale, and 4-week crowdsale.
JUL 2018: WALLET AND MESSAGING APP PRIVATE BETA
Members of the Tip community can sign up to check out the platform. Users will be able to find people by username and send TIP via instant messages.
AUG 2018: WALLET AND MESSAGING APP PUBLIC BETA
We will open up beta testing so that more users can get a hands-on experience of using our revolutionary crypto wallet and instant messaging app.
NOV 2018: INSTANT MESSAGING WALLET APP RELEASE
After months of extensive development and testing, the Kasakasa crypto wallet and the instant messaging app will be ready for primetime. Discover users and businesses on the platform, and send crypto using friendly usernames.
JAN 2019: CLOSED BETA OF POINT OF SALE SYSTEM
Development and consultation with our business partners culminates in opening up our platform to select businesses, so they can start using the Sika point of sale system to accept crypto payments.
APR 2019: TIP BLOCKCHAIN TESTNET LAUNCH
The messaging and point of sale applications switch over to using the Tip Blockchain testnet. Beta testing will be open to the public to try out our new 3rd gen blockchain.
AUG 2019: RELEASE OF SIKA POINT OF SALE SYSTEM
Merchants all over the world will be able to easily integrate Tip crypto payments into their existing payment flow.
FEB 2020: LAUNCH OF TIP NETWORK MAIN NET
The discovery enabled Tip Network chain goes live. Sika and Kasakasa will be ported over to using the Tip main net and data migrated to IPFS. ERC20 tokens will be swapped for main net tokens at a 1-to-1 rate.

Major milestones are presented. Most of the descriptions provided do not provide much additional detail beyond what is already communicated with the title of the milestone.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization has primarily conceptualized the platform. It does not seem as though technical notable milestones have been reached.

Feasiblity: The development of the private beta is uncertain. The code for the platform is not hosted on GitHub and the code cannot be assessed. Only a wireframe of the application is available. As such, the development of the beta version of the platform in July 2018 (the time the review was written) is uncertain. Furthermore, the lack of information regarding the Tip Blockchain indicates that the feasibility of the organization releasing a a testnet for “new 3rd gen blockchain” by April 2019 seems unlikely when considering the team skill set and the lack of notable achievements that the organization has achieved thus far.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation with respect to blockchain technology. The platform will be initially developed on the Ethereum blockchain and will be migrated to the organization’s own blockchain solution. However, the details of the company’s plan for the development and capabilities of their own blockchain is significantly lacking,

 

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.3

Market

Target User Base: The target demographic for the platform is the mass market. The company aims to develop a product that increases the adoption of cryptocurrency.

Market Penetration Potential: Market penetration is unlikely. There are many competitors within this sector of blockchain-projects and the organization does not adequately describe the differentiating features of the platform.

Direct Competition: There are a number of similar projects that would be considered potential competitors to Tip Blockchain. The strategy outlines a number of potential competitors:

– Dether
– Toshi
– Status
– Dash
– Circle
– STK
– Carry Protocol
– MobileCoin
– Pundi X
– Chat Coin

Other competitors include:
– ENS: Ethereum Name Service
– Status Network
– KIN: Kik Network Token
– Telegram
– IOV

Solution Advantage: The three attributes of the platform that are stated to differentiate it from potential competitors are outlined in the strategy paper as follows: adoption, volatility, and discovery. Repeated throughout the comparisons with potential competitors in the strategy paper is the fact that “TIP leverages data generated from user transactions to discovery insights and opportunities in the real world” and that the company plans on “creating a offline ecosystem fueled by discovery of metadata”. However, these aspects of the platform lack detail. Pundi X seems to be the organization’s most direct competitor. In the strategy paper, there is nothing outlined in the comparison which would differentiate the project from Pundi X.

Blockchain Disruption: As described by the solution, disruption seems unlikely due to the lack of details provided with regards to the main components of the platform. The utilization of human readable addresses is evidently beneficial, but the platform as a whole seems to lack focus.

Long-Term Vision: There is a brief section (4 sentences) in the whitepaper that outlines the long-term vision of the organization. The organization wishes to become fully decentralized and develop their own blockchain which supports native indexing and searching. The long-term vision of the platform from a technical perspective is uncertain.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Market Penetration Potential

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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:
2.3

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Information on the organization is limited. Based on the company LinkedIn page, the privately-held company was founded in 2018 and are based in Toronto, Canada. It is unclear whether the organization has raised significant levels of funds.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 9 individuals and 8 advisors are presented on the company website. The team structure is presented on the company website as follows: John Warmann | Founder and CEO Garlam Won | Chief Strategist Walter Pareja | Head of Information Security Carolyn Jiang | Community Manager Supul Amarookan | Product Manager Hassan Qureshi | Head of UX Design Victor Guedes | Full Stack Developer Yeonsuk Kim | UX/UI Design Intern Ahmad Dewanto Choirul Huda | Campaign Manager Jasper Hellman | Marketing Advisor Benoît Morelli | Chief Advisor Carl Nunez | Investment Advisor David Sabo | Token Advisor Mitchell VerVoort | Legal Advisor Jared Polites | Marketing Advisor Andrew DeLuna | Strategic Advisor Miikka Saloseutu | Strategic Marketing Advisor Most team members show thier involvement with the project on their LinkedIn profiles. There seems to be a lack of team members with a technical position, especially considering that the company plans to develop their own blockchain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is presented with a short bio description and a link to their LinkedIn profile. When assessing the LinkedIn profile of the CEO/founder, the level of information presented with regards to their current responsibilities and prior work experience is limited. There is a lack of information presented on the profiles of those with a technical role/background (the CEO, and the full-stack developer).

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The CEO was previously a senior mobile app developer and the founder of LocalizeWiz (localization service provider) and Cell Innovation Inc (mobile software solution company). The team primarily possesses individuals with experience with (mobile) application development.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team skill set seems heavily skewed towards business development. There are a lack of individuals with a technical role considering the scope of the project. Team members that possess extensive blockchain technology development is not evident.

Strategic Partnerships: There are some notable organization listed as partners on the company website such as: – Bancor – Bounty0x – Trustroot The level of involvement from these organizations are not clear. Even in a post (https://medium.com/trustroot/what-does-tip-blockchain-and-trustroot-partnership-mean-db8afdc18447) which attempts to outline the meaning of the partnership between Trustroot and Tip Blockchain, how the organization will be involved with the development of the project is not clear. The only involvement with Bounty0x seems to be a single interview (via podcast) can be found here: https://shows.pippa.io/bounty0x-podcast/episode-8-tipblockchainio.

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..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

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

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

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

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:
1.8

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: In the strategy paper, it is stated that TIP and the ecosystem will be used as a:
– One-stop-shop platform where both users and businesses can easily transact in crypto without leaving the platform
– Discovery blockchain where businesses can translate the nuanced purchase behavior of users into an opportunity

The details of the stable coin (TS) are lacking. However, the justifcation for developing a custom token is justifiable.

Token Economy: It is stated that “the total amount of TIP that can exist is limited to the current market cap of TIP”. How this will be accomplished is uncertain, since [Market Cap] = [Coin Price] x [Coin Supply]. Coin supply is required to determine market cap. Additionally, this contradicts the information presented on the company website, which states that the total supply will be 1,000,000,000 TIP.

Other details of the token economics is outlined in the whitepaper as follows:

Full Nodes: 99 Delegates
Block Time: 9 seconds
Block Reward: 24 TIP (decreasing by 4 TIP every year or 3,504,000 blocks)
Transactions per second: 1,000, scale up to 8,000
Blocks per day: 9600
Token Emission: 230,400/day or 84,096,000 year 1 (8.4%)
Tokens per delegate: 849,454 (Year 1)

It is stated that: The TIP emission rate will be 24 TIP per block in year 1. This translates to 84,096,000 for the first year, or an 8.4% annual emission rate.

There is a lack of clarity with respect to the platform’s dual token model. The entirety of the discussion regarding the stable coin is contained in approximately half a page of written content which can be found in the strategy document.

System Decentralization (besides token): It is stated that the organization will “use a hybrid model of decentralized network and apps, and centralized database to solve the problem of discovery in the short term” and will utilize a “distributed off-chain database which will provide the name registration, indexing, and querying of information”. During the initial release, decentralization will not be a core aspect of the platform. The consensus protocol is briefly outlined in the whitepaper: the Tip Blockchain ecosystem will utilize a delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS) consensus protocol. The centralized aspects of the platform are adequately justified.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A
Hard cap: 46,450 ETH

The use of proceeds is not described adequately enough to justify the fairly high hard cap of the token sale.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented on the company website as follows:

45% – Research and Development
25% – Marketing & Business Development
17% – Operations
8% – Miscellaneous & Unexpected costs
5% – Legal

Further details as to how funds will be utilized is not outlined thoroughly.

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

60% – Token sale
17% – Company reserve
10% – Team
8% – Bounties
5% – Advisors

The use of the company reserve is not thoroughly discussed.

Vesting schedules are outlined as follows:
Tip Employees: 2 years, linear vesting with a 6 month cliff.
Advisors: 1 year, linear vesting with a 6 month cliff.

 

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.

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).

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but looks okay.
Token Allocation

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

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

Use this code to share the ratings on your website