Brickblock

INVEST CRYPTOCURRENCIES IN REAL-WORLD ASSETS

About Brickblock

Brickblock aims to allow users to invest in real-world assets using cryptocurrencies. The trading platform allows users to invest in real estate funds (REFs), exchange-traded funds (ETFs), passive coin-traded funds (CTF) and active coin managed funds (CMFs) using various cryptocurrencies: Brickblock tokens, Access tokens, and Proof-of-Assets (PoA) Tokens. Brickblock tokens are used to periodically reward users with Access Tokens. Access tokens are used to list funds on the Brickblock platform and pay for transaction fees. PoA tokens are asset-backed tokens for ETFs and REFs and represent “a claim to coin funds on a secured trading account or in custodians’ wallets” in the case of CMFs and CTFs.

Company and Team Use of Blockchain

Product

2.6
Product
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

Brickblock’s target user base are investors (institutional and private), fund managers, broker-dealers, and commercial paper issuers. The level of competition that Brickblock faces is fairly substantial, but competitors are addressed in detail within the document. There is a proof-of-concept available through the website. The level of development of the “working product” is seemingly low as the functionality of the product is quite limited; at the time of review, users are limited to using the product for signing up for the pre-sale and claiming BBK tokens. The GitHub page is provided and contains high levels of activity and content.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.8
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

There are three tokens used on the Brickblock platform: BBT, ACT, and PoA tokens. All three tokens will be ERC20 compliant tokens. Additional content regarding the governance structure would be desirable. It is stated that users will trade tokens which represent foreign assets using a “proof-of-asset” system which represents a “legally enforceable claim to underlying assets”. Users will be able exchange tokens for fiat after completing a mandatory KYC process. As the platform aims to facilitate asset-backed tokens, the need to create a custom token is evident.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.2
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is dense with written content but fairly short at 10 pages. Additionally, there is a technical document on the website which is 9 pages in length. The level of detail provided in the technical document is fairly low – its most technical aspects are a few diagrams. Both documents discuss the platform primarily in logistical terms. The business plan is presented with moderate levels of detail. Competitors are discussed in thoroughly: Taas, Melonport, Shapeshift Prism, Digix and Proof Suite. Brickblock aims to compete with these platforms by using legally binding contracts, smart contract powered escrow services, and by ensuring that “all Brickblock transactions are legally accepted and enforceable in a court of law”. However, specific details with regard to legal enforcement of Brickblock transactions are absent from the documents. Overall, the whitepaper primarily discusses the different features of the platform at a basic level.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.4
Roadmap
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The roadmap on the website spans from 2016 to 2019. There are 14 milestones presented, 7 of which have already been achieved. The first sale of a tokenized real estate asset is planned for Q2 2018. It is stated that a full real estate smart contract ecosystem will launch in Q3 2018. A roadmap is not included in the whitepaper.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.0
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Compliance

Legal content provided both on the website and in the whitepaper is quite lacking, especially considering the nature of the project. There is a short disclaimer at the end of the whitepaper that provides standard due diligence with regards to the document: “Brickblock and its affiliates shall have no liability for damages of any kind arising out of the use, reference to, or reliance on this white paper”.

Compliance Product

Company and Team

3.2
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Company and Team

Brickblock was established in Gibraltar in 2017. The organization has raised $1MM USD in Q3 2017 in pre-sales and $4MM USD for the first round of public funding (which includes private investment). There is a fairly sizable team, with 7 lead team members and 22 core team members. 25 employees are listed on the Brickblock LinkedIn page. Team members are listed on the website along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to LinkedIn profiles for most individuals (two of the directors do not include their LinkedIn accounts, and the LinkedIn profiles of these individuals could not be found via manual search). The blockchain engineer has prior experience developing for blockchain-related projects. There is a section of the website where individuals are able to apply for variety of positions on the team (primarily technical positions).

Product

Brickblock’s target user base are investors (institutional and private), fund managers, broker-dealers, and commercial paper issuers. The level of competition that Brickblock faces is fairly substantial, but competitors are addressed in detail within the document. There is a proof-of-concept available through the website. The level of development of the “working product” is seemingly low as the functionality of the product is quite limited; at the time of review, users are limited to using the product for signing up for the pre-sale and claiming BBK tokens. The GitHub page is provided and contains high levels of activity and content.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.6

Use of Blockchain

There are three tokens used on the Brickblock platform: BBT, ACT, and PoA tokens. All three tokens will be ERC20 compliant tokens. Additional content regarding the governance structure would be desirable. It is stated that users will trade tokens which represent foreign assets using a “proof-of-asset” system which represents a “legally enforceable claim to underlying assets”. Users will be able exchange tokens for fiat after completing a mandatory KYC process. As the platform aims to facilitate asset-backed tokens, the need to create a custom token is evident.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is dense with written content but fairly short at 10 pages. Additionally, there is a technical document on the website which is 9 pages in length. The level of detail provided in the technical document is fairly low – its most technical aspects are a few diagrams. Both documents discuss the platform primarily in logistical terms. The business plan is presented with moderate levels of detail. Competitors are discussed in thoroughly: Taas, Melonport, Shapeshift Prism, Digix and Proof Suite. Brickblock aims to compete with these platforms by using legally binding contracts, smart contract powered escrow services, and by ensuring that “all Brickblock transactions are legally accepted and enforceable in a court of law”. However, specific details with regard to legal enforcement of Brickblock transactions are absent from the documents. Overall, the whitepaper primarily discusses the different features of the platform at a basic level.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Whitepaper Score:
3.2

Roadmap

The roadmap on the website spans from 2016 to 2019. There are 14 milestones presented, 7 of which have already been achieved. The first sale of a tokenized real estate asset is planned for Q2 2018. It is stated that a full real estate smart contract ecosystem will launch in Q3 2018. A roadmap is not included in the whitepaper.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.4

Compliance

Legal content provided both on the website and in the whitepaper is quite lacking, especially considering the nature of the project. There is a short disclaimer at the end of the whitepaper that provides standard due diligence with regards to the document: “Brickblock and its affiliates shall have no liability for damages of any kind arising out of the use, reference to, or reliance on this white paper”.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
2.0

Company and Team

Brickblock was established in Gibraltar in 2017. The organization has raised $1MM USD in Q3 2017 in pre-sales and $4MM USD for the first round of public funding (which includes private investment). There is a fairly sizable team, with 7 lead team members and 22 core team members. 25 employees are listed on the Brickblock LinkedIn page. Team members are listed on the website along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to LinkedIn profiles for most individuals (two of the directors do not include their LinkedIn accounts, and the LinkedIn profiles of these individuals could not be found via manual search). The blockchain engineer has prior experience developing for blockchain-related projects. There is a section of the website where individuals are able to apply for variety of positions on the team (primarily technical positions).

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
3.2

Token Sale

The total number of BBK tokens is 320 million (51% is for token sale contributers, 35% is for the company reserve, 13% is for early backers and private investors, and 1% is for the bounty program). The allocation of funds is not clearly outlined. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $50MM USD, where 1 BBK = $0.60 USD. The public token sale takes place April 30, 2018.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token Sale Score:
0.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website