Cryptohawk

CryptoHawk is a platform for trading between different cryptocurrencies.

About Cryptohawk

CryptoHawk aims to become an all-in-one solution for cryptocurrencies and will allow users to trade cryptocurrencies and act as a payment solution. HAWK token holders receive voting rights and a portion of the fees collected on the trading platform. Each cryptocurrency trade will have a 0.25% fee and 25% of the funds generated from fees will be distributed to HAWK owners on a monthly basis. Professional support is an aspect of CryptoHawk that the organization believes will allow them to compete with other platforms.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.2
Product
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Appeal

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Product

CryptoHawk’s target user base is not made clear. The whitepaper suggests that the platform aims to become a cryptocurrency trading platform and a payment solution. The demographic that the organization is targeting is also not clear (casual investors, experienced investors, etc). The level of competition that the platform faces as a cryptocurrency payment solution and trading platform is quite high, although the document states that “competition among payment providers in this sector is very limited”. The only competitor that is specifically identified is Amazon and that platform aims to compete by offering “services with best conditions and first-class service”. Details of this service is not specified. The benefits of the platform are not described well so it is unclear how CryptoHawk plans to compete with other blockchain-related projects that aim to become a widely adopted.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.0
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.

Use of Blockchain

HAWK is an ERC20 compliant token. Token holders receive 25% of the funds generated from trading fees and are also granted voting rights. It is only stated that users are able to vote, but the aspects of the platform that are subject to change according to voting outcomes are not clearly discussed. It is not clearly evident that the use of blockchain technology extends beyond the issuance of tokens.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

1.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 25 pages. The document begins with a fairly brief overview of cryptocurrency in general and continues to describe the platform in a manner that is quite generic. There is a lack of written content and the document heavily relies on visual content. There is close to no content in the whitepaper that discusses the technological aspects of the platform. The business plan is quite vague. There are some details with regards to the business aspects of the platform (service fees, use of funds, etc), but overall the content is still lacking. Additional aspects of the platform include a CryptoHawk credit card and ATM. Only a few sentences are used to describe these aspects of the platform. There is a fairly considerable level of use of buzzwords: it is stated that the “entire hybrid infrastructure uses the latest encryption technologies to ensure the security of your sensitive data”. Overall, the whitepaper is significantly vague and lacks content. The purpose of the platform is not clear, as the language of the document is fairly generic.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

1.4
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

The CryptoHawk team is located in Switzerland. The roadmap in the whitepaper spans from August 2016 to May 2018. There are 8 milestones presented, 5 of which have already been achieved and include the conceptualization of the platform, research, and opening an office. It is stated that by April 2018 CryptoHawk credit cards will be shipped and by May 2018 the CryptoHawk exchange will be ready for release. Overall the milestones are quite vague. For example, in July 2017 the organization planned to “start the development of the exchange”.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.0
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

There is a complete lack of legal content in both the whitepaper and the website.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

1.2
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (e.g., no online profiles).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
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

The core team of 11 individuals are listed on the CryptoHawk whitepaper, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. Strangely, only the advisors are clearly shown on the website. Only 3 individuals (the C-level executives) are listed employees of CryptoHawk according to the organization’s LinkedIn page. The CEO lacks professional experience and appears quite young. Overall, LinkedIn profiles of the executives lack content, thus the competency of the lead team members is questionable. Many LinkedIn profiles of the rest of the core team could not be found. It is not clear that the developers have had experience working with blockchain-related projects.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

The total number of HAWK tokens is 150 million (66% is for sale, 15% is for development, 10% is for marketing, 5% is for future employees, 2% is for the bounty program, and 2% is for advisors). Distribution of exchange funds are as follows: 45% for research and development, 25% for profit participation, 20% for marketing, 5% for integration, servers and connectivity, and 5% for legal fees. The soft cap is 500K USD and the hard cap is 6 to 7 million USD.

Product

CryptoHawk’s target user base is not made clear. The whitepaper suggests that the platform aims to become a cryptocurrency trading platform and a payment solution. The demographic that the organization is targeting is also not clear (casual investors, experienced investors, etc). The level of competition that the platform faces as a cryptocurrency payment solution and trading platform is quite high, although the document states that “competition among payment providers in this sector is very limited”. The only competitor that is specifically identified is Amazon and that platform aims to compete by offering “services with best conditions and first-class service”. Details of this service is not specified. The benefits of the platform are not described well so it is unclear how CryptoHawk plans to compete with other blockchain-related projects that aim to become a widely adopted.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Appeal

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Product Score:
1.2

Use of Blockchain

HAWK is an ERC20 compliant token. Token holders receive 25% of the funds generated from trading fees and are also granted voting rights. It is only stated that users are able to vote, but the aspects of the platform that are subject to change according to voting outcomes are not clearly discussed. It is not clearly evident that the use of blockchain technology extends beyond the issuance of tokens.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.0

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 25 pages. The document begins with a fairly brief overview of cryptocurrency in general and continues to describe the platform in a manner that is quite generic. There is a lack of written content and the document heavily relies on visual content. There is close to no content in the whitepaper that discusses the technological aspects of the platform. The business plan is quite vague. There are some details with regards to the business aspects of the platform (service fees, use of funds, etc), but overall the content is still lacking. Additional aspects of the platform include a CryptoHawk credit card and ATM. Only a few sentences are used to describe these aspects of the platform. There is a fairly considerable level of use of buzzwords: it is stated that the “entire hybrid infrastructure uses the latest encryption technologies to ensure the security of your sensitive data”. Overall, the whitepaper is significantly vague and lacks content. The purpose of the platform is not clear, as the language of the document is fairly generic.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - It's a brochure.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Deliberate obfuscation.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
1.6

Roadmap

The CryptoHawk team is located in Switzerland. The roadmap in the whitepaper spans from August 2016 to May 2018. There are 8 milestones presented, 5 of which have already been achieved and include the conceptualization of the platform, research, and opening an office. It is stated that by April 2018 CryptoHawk credit cards will be shipped and by May 2018 the CryptoHawk exchange will be ready for release. Overall the milestones are quite vague. For example, in July 2017 the organization planned to “start the development of the exchange”.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
1.4

Compliance

There is a complete lack of legal content in both the whitepaper and the website.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
1.0

Company and Team

The core team of 11 individuals are listed on the CryptoHawk whitepaper, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. Strangely, only the advisors are clearly shown on the website. Only 3 individuals (the C-level executives) are listed employees of CryptoHawk according to the organization’s LinkedIn page. The CEO lacks professional experience and appears quite young. Overall, LinkedIn profiles of the executives lack content, thus the competency of the lead team members is questionable. Many LinkedIn profiles of the rest of the core team could not be found. It is not clear that the developers have had experience working with blockchain-related projects.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (e.g., no online profiles).
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Unrelated or irrelevant, if any.
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:
1.2

Token Sale

The total number of HAWK tokens is 150 million (66% is for sale, 15% is for development, 10% is for marketing, 5% is for future employees, 2% is for the bounty program, and 2% is for advisors). Distribution of exchange funds are as follows: 45% for research and development, 25% for profit participation, 20% for marketing, 5% for integration, servers and connectivity, and 5% for legal fees. The soft cap is 500K USD and the hard cap is 6 to 7 million USD.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website