COPYTRACK

Copytrack revolutionizes how creators protect, track and monetize their work by using blockchain and smart contracts technology.

About COPYTRACK

COPYTRACK aims to provide a service that can search for user generated images across the web, and if there is a successful match, proceed with enforcement and licensing. The platform is planned to include registration of images via blockchain as well as a marketplace for artists and consumers. COPYTRACK aims to create a global, transparent, decentralized register for copyrights of digital content. At the same time, the company plans to implement a use-case for the decentralized ledger called The Global Copyright Register for Images, along with a transparent Image Marketplace.Competitors: Kodak-coin, Binded, Bernstein Technologies GmbH, NKOR.
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Little to none.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.0
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide market.
Competition

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

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

Product

A public beta has been released that provides an automatic settlement portal and an open API, and that is claimed to be operational in 140 countries (though which countries specifically is not said). There is NO GITHUB REPO to be found or provided for. The main focus of the team at the current stage is to complete the ICO and then to launch the global COPYTRACK register and token swap. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and the decentralized COPYTRACK market will not be released until mid-2019.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the incrediable amount of copyright infringment that has taken place since the birth of the internet.
Competitors: Kodak-coin, Binded, Bernstein Technologies GmbH, NKOR.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
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

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own copyright asset marketplace and to eventually make it fully decentralized. There is a disruptive advantage as it would enable asset owners to commit their copyrights to the blockchain and allow for autonomous oversight of those copyrights. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace, however in theory ETH alone could accomplish this as well. The system aims to be fully decentralized in the future, however it is not clear how it intends to accomplish full decentralization as in its current form it is completely centralized. Pontentially disruptive since there is a lot of copyright infringment that currently takes place.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

4.4
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
Transparency

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Candid openness.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.

Whitepaper

There are two whitepapers, one is labeled the ‘business/ICO whitepaper’ and is very professional, visually pleasing and thorough. The second ‘technical whitepaper’ has the same format and covers the same material, but in a quick and concise fashion – it is about 1/3 the length of the former. The ‘business/ICO whitepaper’ provides a description of the platform in its present state, potential for business growth, processes for automated enforcement, the technology and marketplace, post-ICO plans for expansion and full decentralization, as well as financial and ICO information. The legal review provided is very long and detailed, and seeks to absolve the company of any liabilities, however it is also very transperent regarding the fact that no regulatory body has reviewed or approved the legal agreement and that potential risk is present.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.6
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

Roadmap begins in 2015 with the foundation of COPYTRACK. The roadmap is outlined on a monthly to quarterly basis and provides very vague general milestones. The roadmap shows a preparation process throughout 2017 including the beta service and settlement portal, culminating in a public ICO in 2018. The milestones are very vaguely stated, for example: “token swap”, “launch public api for various media registration”, and “Launch COPYTRACK-market”. There is no GITHUB REPO for the ICO smart contract or main project. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and to further develop the goals of the project. There is a beta in place that is claimed to be used in 140 countries but the countries are not specified. A lot of work and time still required for the project to be completed. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

The CPY-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the COPYTRACK platform, as it is used for the copyright marketplace. The COPYTRACK service is released for private beta in 140 countries (not specified), however the fully decentralized application will be ready only well after the ICO, and it seems that as of now the main focus is of the project is to complete the ICO fundraising and then progress toward the copyright marketplace and decentralized application. The legal review provided is very long and detailed, and seeks to absolve the company of any liabilities, however it is also very transperent regarding the fact that no regulatory body has reviewed or approved the legal agreement and that potential risk is present.
The COPYTRACK team has gave attention to compliance laws with a detailed legal review stating all global securities law shall be followed and has registration processes for KYC/AML compliance. The CPY-tokens will only be used as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges until the decentralized advertising marketplace is released.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.

Company and Team

An established team, whose members have experience with law, legal data collection and disputes, copyright, finance, business, software engineering/development, and IT. The team has no background in blockchain, cryptocurrency or smart contract projects. Two advisors have long term experience and exposure to cryptocurrency.
Only the four core members and the advisors have LinkedIn/Xing links on the website with verifiable credentials, however some of these credentials are only given in German, the native language of most team members. No core team member is fully dedicated to the Copytrack project, with some members having no software/tech experience at all and committing to between one and three additional projects, unrelated to blockchain.
20 Employees. 6 Advisors.
Positives: The team seems to have an abundance of legal expertise.
Negatives: The majority of the team has unverifiable credentials and is not fully dedicated to the project; core team has no experience in blockchain, crypto or smart contract projects; and very few team members have tech experience.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.

Token Sale

– Token Value during ICO: 740 CPY/ETH
– Total Supply: 100,000,000 CPY
– Hard Cap pre+public sale total: 60,000,000 CPY
– No soft cap provided but soft cap was surpassed during pre-sale
– pre-sale: 7.8% (7,837,746 CPY)
– public sale: 52.2% (52,162,254 CPY)
– bounties: 1.5% (1,500,000 CPY)
– advisors & founders: 18.5% (18,500,000 CPY)
– blockchain & development (released over 3-5 years): 20% (20,000,000 CPY)
* At the end of the token sale, all remaining tokens will be burned. The founders committed to the following lockup period and release plan: after a 6 month cliff 25% and every month thereafter 5% of their allocation.

Social media presence exists, however it seems as though most social media presence has been developed via bounties rather than organic interest in the project.

Product

A public beta has been released that provides an automatic settlement portal and an open API, and that is claimed to be operational in 140 countries (though which countries specifically is not said). There is NO GITHUB REPO to be found or provided for. The main focus of the team at the current stage is to complete the ICO and then to launch the global COPYTRACK register and token swap. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and the decentralized COPYTRACK market will not be released until mid-2019.
The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the incrediable amount of copyright infringment that has taken place since the birth of the internet.
Competitors: Kodak-coin, Binded, Bernstein Technologies GmbH, NKOR.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide market.
Competition

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
3.0

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it intends to develop its own copyright asset marketplace and to eventually make it fully decentralized. There is a disruptive advantage as it would enable asset owners to commit their copyrights to the blockchain and allow for autonomous oversight of those copyrights. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is an independent marketplace, however in theory ETH alone could accomplish this as well. The system aims to be fully decentralized in the future, however it is not clear how it intends to accomplish full decentralization as in its current form it is completely centralized. Pontentially disruptive since there is a lot of copyright infringment that currently takes place.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
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:
2.2

Whitepaper

There are two whitepapers, one is labeled the ‘business/ICO whitepaper’ and is very professional, visually pleasing and thorough. The second ‘technical whitepaper’ has the same format and covers the same material, but in a quick and concise fashion – it is about 1/3 the length of the former. The ‘business/ICO whitepaper’ provides a description of the platform in its present state, potential for business growth, processes for automated enforcement, the technology and marketplace, post-ICO plans for expansion and full decentralization, as well as financial and ICO information. The legal review provided is very long and detailed, and seeks to absolve the company of any liabilities, however it is also very transperent regarding the fact that no regulatory body has reviewed or approved the legal agreement and that potential risk is present.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
Transparency

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Candid openness.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
4.4

Roadmap

Roadmap begins in 2015 with the foundation of COPYTRACK. The roadmap is outlined on a monthly to quarterly basis and provides very vague general milestones. The roadmap shows a preparation process throughout 2017 including the beta service and settlement portal, culminating in a public ICO in 2018. The milestones are very vaguely stated, for example: “token swap”, “launch public api for various media registration”, and “Launch COPYTRACK-market”. There is no GITHUB REPO for the ICO smart contract or main project. Main focus is to use ERC-20 tokens to conduct the ICO and to further develop the goals of the project. There is a beta in place that is claimed to be used in 140 countries but the countries are not specified. A lot of work and time still required for the project to be completed. Scored a (4) on ‘Dependencies’ since the project will be built on the Ethereum network.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
2.6

Compliance

The CPY-token does have some intrinsic value through its planned usage on the COPYTRACK platform, as it is used for the copyright marketplace. The COPYTRACK service is released for private beta in 140 countries (not specified), however the fully decentralized application will be ready only well after the ICO, and it seems that as of now the main focus is of the project is to complete the ICO fundraising and then progress toward the copyright marketplace and decentralized application. The legal review provided is very long and detailed, and seeks to absolve the company of any liabilities, however it is also very transperent regarding the fact that no regulatory body has reviewed or approved the legal agreement and that potential risk is present.
The COPYTRACK team has gave attention to compliance laws with a detailed legal review stating all global securities law shall be followed and has registration processes for KYC/AML compliance. The CPY-tokens will only be used as tradable financial instruments on secondary trading exchanges until the decentralized advertising marketplace is released.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
3.2

Company and Team

An established team, whose members have experience with law, legal data collection and disputes, copyright, finance, business, software engineering/development, and IT. The team has no background in blockchain, cryptocurrency or smart contract projects. Two advisors have long term experience and exposure to cryptocurrency.
Only the four core members and the advisors have LinkedIn/Xing links on the website with verifiable credentials, however some of these credentials are only given in German, the native language of most team members. No core team member is fully dedicated to the Copytrack project, with some members having no software/tech experience at all and committing to between one and three additional projects, unrelated to blockchain.
20 Employees. 6 Advisors.
Positives: The team seems to have an abundance of legal expertise.
Negatives: The majority of the team has unverifiable credentials and is not fully dedicated to the project; core team has no experience in blockchain, crypto or smart contract projects; and very few team members have tech experience.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.2

Token Sale

– Token Value during ICO: 740 CPY/ETH
– Total Supply: 100,000,000 CPY
– Hard Cap pre+public sale total: 60,000,000 CPY
– No soft cap provided but soft cap was surpassed during pre-sale
– pre-sale: 7.8% (7,837,746 CPY)
– public sale: 52.2% (52,162,254 CPY)
– bounties: 1.5% (1,500,000 CPY)
– advisors & founders: 18.5% (18,500,000 CPY)
– blockchain & development (released over 3-5 years): 20% (20,000,000 CPY)
* At the end of the token sale, all remaining tokens will be burned. The founders committed to the following lockup period and release plan: after a 6 month cliff 25% and every month thereafter 5% of their allocation.

Social media presence exists, however it seems as though most social media presence has been developed via bounties rather than organic interest in the project.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

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

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.
Token Sale Score:
3.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website