DIWToken

DIW is a secure blockchain-based digital platform which safeguards and secures your digital life granting access to an encrypted decentralised world.

About DIWToken

DIW aims to create a platform for securing users’ digital identities, along with a payment gateway and paid escrow system, as well as a trust system. DIW tokens are to be used to access these services and to be distributed as rewards to network operators. The platform is intended to support electronic medical records in the future.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

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

The digital identity sector has quite a few notable competitors. There is a specific document discussing the project’s competitors and how each platform compares. For the most part, the competing platforms have a more narrow focus in comparison to DIW. The comparison is quite comprehensive but the underlying assumption is that more features means a better product, which is not always the case. The target user base for the project is the mass market. Access to the DIW network is only provided to those that complete KYC and all transactions are fully transparent. The GitHub page shows low 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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

DIW is an ERC20 compliant token, used to access services and as a means of exchange on the DIW platform. Network operators will be rewarded with DIW tokens, thus the need for creating a custom token is evident. There is a clear blockchain advantage when compared to existing (traditional) systems for digital identity security, but less so for the other services that the platform provides, such as the paid escrow service.

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?

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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 quite short at 27 pages and is accompanied by documents outlining the technical and fiscal aspects of the platform. The technology plan is presented with moderate levels of detail. The technological discussion consists primarily of a list of proposed features (without discussing technical specifics); one component of the platform, for example, is a decentralized storage solution. There is little discussion regarding the specific details of the service and how it compares to other existing solutions. The business plan has moderate levels of detail. Thorough market research is absent from the whitepaper, along with marketing strategy, fee structure, etc. The document outlining the platform’s financial forecast is quite detailed, but based merely on projected revenue.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

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

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented on the website spans from Q4 2017 to Q4 2018 and contains significantly low levels of detail. The 6 milestones presented do not contain descriptions as to what each milestone entails. The only milestone reached thus far is the development of the whitepaper. The DIW prototype presentation is planned for Q2 2018 and the alpha version is planned for release in Q3 2018, followed by the European launch in Q4 2018. In the long term (not specified in the roadmap), the organization aims to accommodate electronic health records.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.0
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a brief disclaimer section at the end of the document that spans approximately two pages. It is explicitly stated that DIW tokens are not to be considered securities and that “no regulatory authority has examined or approved any of the information set out in [the] Whitepaper”. The token sale will use KYC and residents from the Unites States, Singapore, and China are not permitted to participate.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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

The team of 12 individuals are listed on the website, along with their profile pictures and links to LinkedIn profiles. The skill set of the team is geared towards technology as opposed to business. The CEO’s LinkedIn profile shows that the individual is concurrently the CEO of two other organizations, thus commitment to this project is not certain. The individuals that have roles most closely related to blockchain/smart contract development (Solidity Developer, Blockchain & Software Consultant, and Cryptographer & Application Developer) either have no prior (verifiable) blockchain experience or are occupied with a separate organization (JungleCoders). Overall, commitment from key team members is not assured.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.4
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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 DIW tokens is 1 billion (70% is for the ICO, 15% is for the founders, 5% is for advisors and partners, 2% is for the bounty, and 8% is for future partners). Vesting periods are clearly indicated. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (60% for development, 15% for marketing, 5% for legal fees, 5% for redundancy, 10% for operations, and 5% for administration). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $28MM USD, where 1 ETH = 8000 DIW.

Product

The digital identity sector has quite a few notable competitors. There is a specific document discussing the project’s competitors and how each platform compares. For the most part, the competing platforms have a more narrow focus in comparison to DIW. The comparison is quite comprehensive but the underlying assumption is that more features means a better product, which is not always the case. The target user base for the project is the mass market. Access to the DIW network is only provided to those that complete KYC and all transactions are fully transparent. The GitHub page shows low 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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

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:
2.2

Use of Blockchain

DIW is an ERC20 compliant token, used to access services and as a means of exchange on the DIW platform. Network operators will be rewarded with DIW tokens, thus the need for creating a custom token is evident. There is a clear blockchain advantage when compared to existing (traditional) systems for digital identity security, but less so for the other services that the platform provides, such as the paid escrow service.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
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 quite short at 27 pages and is accompanied by documents outlining the technical and fiscal aspects of the platform. The technology plan is presented with moderate levels of detail. The technological discussion consists primarily of a list of proposed features (without discussing technical specifics); one component of the platform, for example, is a decentralized storage solution. There is little discussion regarding the specific details of the service and how it compares to other existing solutions. The business plan has moderate levels of detail. Thorough market research is absent from the whitepaper, along with marketing strategy, fee structure, etc. The document outlining the platform’s financial forecast is quite detailed, but based merely on projected revenue.

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?

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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 presented on the website spans from Q4 2017 to Q4 2018 and contains significantly low levels of detail. The 6 milestones presented do not contain descriptions as to what each milestone entails. The only milestone reached thus far is the development of the whitepaper. The DIW prototype presentation is planned for Q2 2018 and the alpha version is planned for release in Q3 2018, followed by the European launch in Q4 2018. In the long term (not specified in the roadmap), the organization aims to accommodate electronic health records.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
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?

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

The whitepaper contains a brief disclaimer section at the end of the document that spans approximately two pages. It is explicitly stated that DIW tokens are not to be considered securities and that “no regulatory authority has examined or approved any of the information set out in [the] Whitepaper”. The token sale will use KYC and residents from the Unites States, Singapore, and China are not permitted to participate.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
Compliance Score:
3.0

Company and Team

The team of 12 individuals are listed on the website, along with their profile pictures and links to LinkedIn profiles. The skill set of the team is geared towards technology as opposed to business. The CEO’s LinkedIn profile shows that the individual is concurrently the CEO of two other organizations, thus commitment to this project is not certain. The individuals that have roles most closely related to blockchain/smart contract development (Solidity Developer, Blockchain & Software Consultant, and Cryptographer & Application Developer) either have no prior (verifiable) blockchain experience or are occupied with a separate organization (JungleCoders). Overall, commitment from key team members is not assured.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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:
2.8

Token Sale

The total number of DIW tokens is 1 billion (70% is for the ICO, 15% is for the founders, 5% is for advisors and partners, 2% is for the bounty, and 8% is for future partners). Vesting periods are clearly indicated. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (60% for development, 15% for marketing, 5% for legal fees, 5% for redundancy, 10% for operations, and 5% for administration). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $28MM USD, where 1 ETH = 8000 DIW.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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:
2.4

Use this code to share the ratings on your website