Vaultitude

A blockchain-based IP protection & management software solution

About Vaultitude

VAULTITUDE gives users intellectual property (IP) protection with proof of authorship, safe sharing, as well as a simple means to sell and license IPs. The platform provides users with “undeniable proof of their authorship” and can be used for various IP types: inventions, artistic works, scientific findings, and trade secrets. IP tokens are used in exchange for VAULTITUDE services.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.7
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; business and token models are too vague to assess.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is discussed throughly whereas the discussion regarding the solution lacks detail. The platform is described in fairly vague terms. Technical aspects of the platform are presented with limited detail. The business development plan is minimal and primarily consists of information regarding the token sale as opposed to the token economics and the organization’s business development plan. Use case scenarios and an evaluation on potential competitors are included. The company GitHub page is available and contains public repositories. Information on the team can be found via the company website. Legal content presented in the whitepaper.

Readability: The document is organized and is not obfuscated with technical terms and confusing language.

Transparency: There is a lack of discussion regarding issues that have been identified and the functionality of the demo that is presented on the company website.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model lacks detail. Most economic details that are presented in the whitepaper pertain to the token sale. Different modules that will be available on the platform are discussed, but the revenue model of the ecosystem is not clearly presented. The ways in which users are able to spend IP tokens is not sufficiently discussed.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: With regards to the technical components of the platform, specific details are somewhat lacking. The majority of the discussion is a broad overview of how the platform will work and the features that will be implemented as opposed to a specific discussion regarding technical considerations and how it will be implemented. There is a brief discussion regarding how the organization will use IPFS for data storage. Additionally, there is a brief discussion regarding the justification for using the Ethereum blockchain. It is stated that the “decision was based on Ethereum being the defacto industry standard for issuing custom digital assets, the additional functionality offered by smart contracts and the high level of trust placed in the robustness of the Ethereum network”.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: In the whitepaper, it is stated that the platform is “built according to WIPO standards and international classifications to meet the requirements of patent and trademark offices around the world”. Further details as to how the platform is compliant with the various standards discussed in the whitepaper are limited. For the most part, it is merely stated that the platform will be compliant with various regulations/standards without going in to detail as to how it will be accomplished. There is a brief disclaimer in the beginning of the whitepaper. For example, it is simply stated that “in order to become the de-facto standard in IP protection, Vaultitude has been designed according to WIPO regulations and international classifications and will meet the highest technical standards”. A discussion on the regulations related to the token sale in Gibraltar is also included in the token sale section of the whitepaper.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.5
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).

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Feasiblity

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

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: In the whitepaper, it is stated that “VAULTITUDE is a holistic tool for IP protection that clearly focuses on complementing the legal system by providing proof of authorship, defensive publication, safe sharing, and the documentation of transfers of IP rights using Blockchain technology”.

Readiness: A demonstration is available which can be found on the company website. The company GitHub page (IPCHAIN) contains several repositories that show that the organization has made considerable technical developments towards the platform. The GitHub page can be found here: https://github.com/IPChainDev

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the form of a Gantt chart in the whitepaper. On the company website, the roadmap is presented as follows:
April 2017
– First brainstorming session with IP experts
May 2017
– Putting together the team
June-August 2017
– Technical design of IPCHAIN database
September 2017
– Researching stakeholder requirements
October 2017
– Launch of homepage and social media channels
November 2017
– Technical and regulatory specifications, Set up of legal structure
December 2017
– Partnership with IP institutions, IP stakeholders and universities, Release of White Paper
Q1 2018
– UI and prototype development, Advisory Board announcement, Feedback from pilot users
End of Q1 2018
– Token Pre-Sale
Q3 2018
– Release of Vaultitude 1.0
Q3 2018
– Vaultitude Token Sale
Q4 2018
– Networking and integration by international institutions and stakeholders
2019
– Release of Vaultitude 2.0

Overall milestones are presented. Most developments are focused on technical developments. There is sufficient information presented for milestones. There seems to be a lack of milestones outlined between Q3 2018 and 2019.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization (according to the roadmap) has been focused on developing the team, conceptualizing the product, and has begun development on the alpha version of the product (a demo is available).

Feasiblity: The organization has a working demonstration available on the company website. However, at the time of the review (end of June 2018), the release of the first version of the product has yet to be released. Furthermore, when assessing the company’s social media accounts, there is a lack of recent posts that would indicate that the organization will release the first version of the product any time soon.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective. For the most part the platform is utilizing the immutability aspects of blockchain technology, more specifically the Ethereum blockchain in order to store data regarding intellectual property.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

2.5
Market
Target User Base

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.

Market

Target User Base: The platform will serve inventors, artists, and scientists and those that are concerned with intellectual property.

Market Penetration Potential: Considering the regulatory obstacles that are associated with intellectual property (which are adequately discussed in the whitepaper), market penetration will be challenging. Regulations and standards are mentioned, but the specific means in which the organization and the ecosystem will be compliant is not made clear.

Direct Competition: Potential competitors include (but are not limited to):

– IP.com
– IPwe
– Po.et
– Bernstein
– Binded
– Copyrobo
– Stampery

Solution Advantage: There is a a specific section in the whitepaper that outlines the advantages of the platform.

– Securely store your IP
– Clear proof of copyright
– Superior defensive publication
– Safe sharing of information
– A versatile marketplace
– Protect existing patents
– Finance your ideas
– Build a network and peer review
– Find expert help

However, the advantages are quite vague and do not seem to uniquely apply to VAULTITUDE. Notables features that may set it apart from direct competitors include its search engine, licensing and selling of IPs, as well as its API access for patent offices and Universities

Blockchain Disruption: The main features of the platform are outlined as follows:

– Safe storage
– Safe sharing
– Defensive publication
– Proof of authorship
– Selling and licensing of IP
– Filing Patents and Trademarks

Most of these features do not necessarily require the use of blockchain technology. As a result, the introduction of blockchain technology in this sector will bring some advantages, but the benefits do not seem particularly revolutionary or likely to cause high levels of disruption.

Long-Term Vision: The project has questionable viability when considering the lack of detail provided in the whitepaper regarding token economics and token flow. The benefits of implementing blockchain technology seem contrived.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.0
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: VAULTITUDE (formerly IPCHAIN Database), is a for-profit company based in Gibraltar. It is unclear whether the organization has received high levels of investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team is only presented on the company website. The core team consists of 5 individuals along with 11 team members with advisory positions (7 of which are Advisory Board Members). The team structure is presented as follows: Dr. Dominik Thor | CEO Sven Möller | CTO Lukas Fiedler | Corporate Strategy Art Zask | Account Manager Erkan Ciftci | Community Manager Sergej Stein | Token Advisor Benedikt Thor | Marketing Advisor Ernst Tertilt | Financial Advisor Mag. Peter Melicharek | Legal Advisor Anatole Krattiger | Advisory Board Member Dr. Richard Brunner | Advisory Board Member Michael E. Bryant | Advisory Board Member Kiran Kumar Chereddy | Advisory Board Member Caglar Eger | Advisory Board Member Vladimir Yossifov | Advisory Board Member Ingrid Kelly Spillmann | Advisory Board Member The CEO concurrently works as a Partner for Tomorrowlabs and Grasberg Biosciences Ltd. The CTO is concurrently involved with various unrelated blockchain-focused organizations. The individual with the Corporate Strategy in concurrently responsible for community management and working as a consultant for unrelated organizations. Details regarding the Community Manager are not clearly presented. Overall team commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is accompanied with a brief bio description (approximately 2-4 sentences) which is shown on the company website. All core team members, with the exception of the community manager include a link to their LinkedIn profile. When assessing the LinkedIn profiles, it is found that involvement with the project is evident for most team members (except the Community Manager). The CTO does not disclose their affiliation with the organization.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The relevance of prior work experience for the founder with respect to the project is not evident. The CEO primarily working with biotech companies. The technical background of the CTO is uncertain. It does not seem as though the individual has had extensive experience working in a technical role. The CTO does not seem to have much experience working in lead tech positions.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a lack of individuals on the team that have a technical role. The skill set of the core team is primarily skewed towards business development.

Strategic Partnerships: There is a section on the company that outlines “partnerships”. Notable partnerships/launch partners that would greatly influence the adoption of the platform is not evident.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.3
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: VAULTITUDE tokens are used to use the platform services. The specific services which will require IPC tokens for access is not certain. The inherent value of the token seems contrived.

Token Economy: Total supply 15 million IPC

A discussion on earn/spend mechanisms is severely lacking. With regards to the use of the VAULTITUDE token, it is merely stated that “VAULTITUDE tokens are utility tokens and will be required to use VAULTITUDE services”.

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure of the platform is not discussed in great detail. It is not evident that token holders will receive significant voting privileges. As such, it appears that the platform will operate on distributed/decentralized architecture, but the manner in which the ecosystem operates is solely up to the organization.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap; N/A
Hard cap: 36,000 ETH

The use of proceeds is described with enough detail in order to justify the fairly high hard cap.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

45% – Development
15% – Marketing and PR
15% – Technical infrastructure
10% – Operations and Admin
10% – Legal
5% – Misc.

It is stated that “funds generated in the initial token sale will be used to create the extensive list of publication and research features described in the white paper and will enable the team to offer interfaces for patent offices, academic institutions, courts and legal professionals all over the world and ensure minimum documentation rules, that in turn will mandate international search authorities, patent examiners, patent lawyers and patent offices to use the VAULTITUDE database as a tool for their evaluation of the novelty of patent filings”. A specific quantitative breakdown of the fund allocation is not presented.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

33.3% – Team, partnerships and development
56.7% – Token sale
10% – Bonus

The vesting schedule is outlines as follows:
– 80% of tokens are locked once Token Sale distribution has ended.
– 50% of tokens are locked after 6 months from Token Sale distribution.
– 25% of tokens are locked after 12 months from Token Sale distribution.
– 0% of tokens are locked after 18 months from Token Sale distribution.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement is discussed throughly whereas the discussion regarding the solution lacks detail. The platform is described in fairly vague terms. Technical aspects of the platform are presented with limited detail. The business development plan is minimal and primarily consists of information regarding the token sale as opposed to the token economics and the organization’s business development plan. Use case scenarios and an evaluation on potential competitors are included. The company GitHub page is available and contains public repositories. Information on the team can be found via the company website. Legal content presented in the whitepaper.

Readability: The document is organized and is not obfuscated with technical terms and confusing language.

Transparency: There is a lack of discussion regarding issues that have been identified and the functionality of the demo that is presented on the company website.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model lacks detail. Most economic details that are presented in the whitepaper pertain to the token sale. Different modules that will be available on the platform are discussed, but the revenue model of the ecosystem is not clearly presented. The ways in which users are able to spend IP tokens is not sufficiently discussed.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: With regards to the technical components of the platform, specific details are somewhat lacking. The majority of the discussion is a broad overview of how the platform will work and the features that will be implemented as opposed to a specific discussion regarding technical considerations and how it will be implemented. There is a brief discussion regarding how the organization will use IPFS for data storage. Additionally, there is a brief discussion regarding the justification for using the Ethereum blockchain. It is stated that the “decision was based on Ethereum being the defacto industry standard for issuing custom digital assets, the additional functionality offered by smart contracts and the high level of trust placed in the robustness of the Ethereum network”.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: In the whitepaper, it is stated that the platform is “built according to WIPO standards and international classifications to meet the requirements of patent and trademark offices around the world”. Further details as to how the platform is compliant with the various standards discussed in the whitepaper are limited. For the most part, it is merely stated that the platform will be compliant with various regulations/standards without going in to detail as to how it will be accomplished. There is a brief disclaimer in the beginning of the whitepaper. For example, it is simply stated that “in order to become the de-facto standard in IP protection, Vaultitude has been designed according to WIPO regulations and international classifications and will meet the highest technical standards”. A discussion on the regulations related to the token sale in Gibraltar is also included in the token sale section 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.

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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; business and token models are too vague to assess.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
2.7

Product

Differentiation: In the whitepaper, it is stated that “VAULTITUDE is a holistic tool for IP protection that clearly focuses on complementing the legal system by providing proof of authorship, defensive publication, safe sharing, and the documentation of transfers of IP rights using Blockchain technology”.

Readiness: A demonstration is available which can be found on the company website. The company GitHub page (IPCHAIN) contains several repositories that show that the organization has made considerable technical developments towards the platform. The GitHub page can be found here: https://github.com/IPChainDev

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the form of a Gantt chart in the whitepaper. On the company website, the roadmap is presented as follows:
April 2017
– First brainstorming session with IP experts
May 2017
– Putting together the team
June-August 2017
– Technical design of IPCHAIN database
September 2017
– Researching stakeholder requirements
October 2017
– Launch of homepage and social media channels
November 2017
– Technical and regulatory specifications, Set up of legal structure
December 2017
– Partnership with IP institutions, IP stakeholders and universities, Release of White Paper
Q1 2018
– UI and prototype development, Advisory Board announcement, Feedback from pilot users
End of Q1 2018
– Token Pre-Sale
Q3 2018
– Release of Vaultitude 1.0
Q3 2018
– Vaultitude Token Sale
Q4 2018
– Networking and integration by international institutions and stakeholders
2019
– Release of Vaultitude 2.0

Overall milestones are presented. Most developments are focused on technical developments. There is sufficient information presented for milestones. There seems to be a lack of milestones outlined between Q3 2018 and 2019.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, the organization (according to the roadmap) has been focused on developing the team, conceptualizing the product, and has begun development on the alpha version of the product (a demo is available).

Feasiblity: The organization has a working demonstration available on the company website. However, at the time of the review (end of June 2018), the release of the first version of the product has yet to be released. Furthermore, when assessing the company’s social media accounts, there is a lack of recent posts that would indicate that the organization will release the first version of the product any time soon.

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective. For the most part the platform is utilizing the immutability aspects of blockchain technology, more specifically the Ethereum blockchain in order to store data regarding intellectual property.

 

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).

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

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

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Feasiblity

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

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:
2.5

Market

Target User Base: The platform will serve inventors, artists, and scientists and those that are concerned with intellectual property.

Market Penetration Potential: Considering the regulatory obstacles that are associated with intellectual property (which are adequately discussed in the whitepaper), market penetration will be challenging. Regulations and standards are mentioned, but the specific means in which the organization and the ecosystem will be compliant is not made clear.

Direct Competition: Potential competitors include (but are not limited to):

– IP.com
– IPwe
– Po.et
– Bernstein
– Binded
– Copyrobo
– Stampery

Solution Advantage: There is a a specific section in the whitepaper that outlines the advantages of the platform.

– Securely store your IP
– Clear proof of copyright
– Superior defensive publication
– Safe sharing of information
– A versatile marketplace
– Protect existing patents
– Finance your ideas
– Build a network and peer review
– Find expert help

However, the advantages are quite vague and do not seem to uniquely apply to VAULTITUDE. Notables features that may set it apart from direct competitors include its search engine, licensing and selling of IPs, as well as its API access for patent offices and Universities

Blockchain Disruption: The main features of the platform are outlined as follows:

– Safe storage
– Safe sharing
– Defensive publication
– Proof of authorship
– Selling and licensing of IP
– Filing Patents and Trademarks

Most of these features do not necessarily require the use of blockchain technology. As a result, the introduction of blockchain technology in this sector will bring some advantages, but the benefits do not seem particularly revolutionary or likely to cause high levels of disruption.

Long-Term Vision: The project has questionable viability when considering the lack of detail provided in the whitepaper regarding token economics and token flow. The benefits of implementing blockchain technology seem contrived.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
Long-Term Vision

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
2.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: VAULTITUDE (formerly IPCHAIN Database), is a for-profit company based in Gibraltar. It is unclear whether the organization has received high levels of investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team is only presented on the company website. The core team consists of 5 individuals along with 11 team members with advisory positions (7 of which are Advisory Board Members). The team structure is presented as follows: Dr. Dominik Thor | CEO Sven Möller | CTO Lukas Fiedler | Corporate Strategy Art Zask | Account Manager Erkan Ciftci | Community Manager Sergej Stein | Token Advisor Benedikt Thor | Marketing Advisor Ernst Tertilt | Financial Advisor Mag. Peter Melicharek | Legal Advisor Anatole Krattiger | Advisory Board Member Dr. Richard Brunner | Advisory Board Member Michael E. Bryant | Advisory Board Member Kiran Kumar Chereddy | Advisory Board Member Caglar Eger | Advisory Board Member Vladimir Yossifov | Advisory Board Member Ingrid Kelly Spillmann | Advisory Board Member The CEO concurrently works as a Partner for Tomorrowlabs and Grasberg Biosciences Ltd. The CTO is concurrently involved with various unrelated blockchain-focused organizations. The individual with the Corporate Strategy in concurrently responsible for community management and working as a consultant for unrelated organizations. Details regarding the Community Manager are not clearly presented. Overall team commitment to the project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Each team member is accompanied with a brief bio description (approximately 2-4 sentences) which is shown on the company website. All core team members, with the exception of the community manager include a link to their LinkedIn profile. When assessing the LinkedIn profiles, it is found that involvement with the project is evident for most team members (except the Community Manager). The CTO does not disclose their affiliation with the organization.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: The relevance of prior work experience for the founder with respect to the project is not evident. The CEO primarily working with biotech companies. The technical background of the CTO is uncertain. It does not seem as though the individual has had extensive experience working in a technical role. The CTO does not seem to have much experience working in lead tech positions.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a lack of individuals on the team that have a technical role. The skill set of the core team is primarily skewed towards business development.

Strategic Partnerships: There is a section on the company that outlines “partnerships”. Notable partnerships/launch partners that would greatly influence the adoption of the platform is not evident.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:
2.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: VAULTITUDE tokens are used to use the platform services. The specific services which will require IPC tokens for access is not certain. The inherent value of the token seems contrived.

Token Economy: Total supply 15 million IPC

A discussion on earn/spend mechanisms is severely lacking. With regards to the use of the VAULTITUDE token, it is merely stated that “VAULTITUDE tokens are utility tokens and will be required to use VAULTITUDE services”.

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure of the platform is not discussed in great detail. It is not evident that token holders will receive significant voting privileges. As such, it appears that the platform will operate on distributed/decentralized architecture, but the manner in which the ecosystem operates is solely up to the organization.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap; N/A
Hard cap: 36,000 ETH

The use of proceeds is described with enough detail in order to justify the fairly high hard cap.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

45% – Development
15% – Marketing and PR
15% – Technical infrastructure
10% – Operations and Admin
10% – Legal
5% – Misc.

It is stated that “funds generated in the initial token sale will be used to create the extensive list of publication and research features described in the white paper and will enable the team to offer interfaces for patent offices, academic institutions, courts and legal professionals all over the world and ensure minimum documentation rules, that in turn will mandate international search authorities, patent examiners, patent lawyers and patent offices to use the VAULTITUDE database as a tool for their evaluation of the novelty of patent filings”. A specific quantitative breakdown of the fund allocation is not presented.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

33.3% – Team, partnerships and development
56.7% – Token sale
10% – Bonus

The vesting schedule is outlines as follows:
– 80% of tokens are locked once Token Sale distribution has ended.
– 50% of tokens are locked after 6 months from Token Sale distribution.
– 25% of tokens are locked after 12 months from Token Sale distribution.
– 0% of tokens are locked after 18 months from Token Sale distribution.

 

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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Practically undefined, or has identifiable critical flaws.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Token Economics Score:
2.3

Use this code to share the ratings on your website