Firmo

About Firmo

Firmo aims to develop a protocol that enables “secure and automated financial contracts”, which are enforceable through trusted third parties. Firmo aims to facilitate the creation of robust smart contracts for financial derivatives, via a contract engine that translates Firmo contracts into smart contracts for any of the major blockchain platforms. FRM tokens will be used as a means of exchange and payment for network fees.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.4
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?

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

It is stated that the Firmo Protocol is currently in the alpha phase of development, although the current state of the platform is not publicly available. The platform will allow for “groups” to be created, whereby there is one public address for a group of users, in order to accommodate a large number of roles within an organization. The platform will allow for smart derivatives, which will contain a user-defined collateral amount based on a user-defined margin (full margins and flexible margins). Inputs from external resources will be accessed via oracle services such as Oraclize. Almost all features are discussed at a layman level and technical discussion is omitted from the whitepaper. Some use cases discussed in the document include futures contracts, American call option, and Vanilla interest rate swap. There are a significant number of blockchain-related projects that aim to simplify the process of executing financial contracts. The level of innovation that the project possesses is quite low. The GitHub page is not publicly available.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.8
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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.)?

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

FRM is an ERC20 compliant token and is said to be “a stable denominator of value”. However, the details are said to be discussed in the next version of the whitepaper. Smart contracts are written using Firmo’s Chorus, a financial contractual markup language that compiles to code that can be deployed on a blockchain of choice. Chorus is non-Turing-complete and it is stated that, according to several studies and recent events, “smart contracts or code written in general purpose Turing-complete languages frequently contains redundancies or vulnerabilities.” However, references and more in-depth discussion is not provided in the document. A thorough comparison between Firmo and its competitors should be included in the document, as the need to create a custom token is not clear. The project’s governance structure is not thoroughly discussed.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.0
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
Transparency

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 16 pages. The technology plan is presented with fairly low levels of detail. A technical whitepaper is in development, but the document was not available at the time of this review. The business plan is presented with low levels of detail. Thorough market assessment, competitor evaluation, and discussion on growth strategies is absent from the whitepaper. The document primarily focuses on discussing the different features of the platform at a layman level. Overall, the whitepaper lacks clarity and detail.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

1.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
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?

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

A development roadmap is not presented in the whitepaper or on the Firmo website.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.4
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?

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 minimal discussion regarding compliance and legal considerations of the platform and the token sale. There are no disclaimers or content about the risk factors associated with Firmo.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.0
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

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

The core team of 12 individuals are listed on the Firmo website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to LinkedIn profiles for most (two absent). The CEO has a PhD in mathematical finance and is the Assistant Professor in Blockchain Technology at the University of Copenhagen. The Solidity developer is a recent university graduate that has written a thesis about blockchain technology. There are two CTOs, each with blockchain related experience (Appcoin), as well as experience in fintech. Both CTOs are concurrently occupied with CTO positions for another organization (Sail Business Loans). The COO is also the Director of Business Operations at COLU. Overall, the team has a fair balance of individuals that will facilitate technological and business development and a few individuals with blockchain experience, but the level of commitment to the project is questionable.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.8
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?

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

Token Sale

Details of the token sale are not provided.

Product

It is stated that the Firmo Protocol is currently in the alpha phase of development, although the current state of the platform is not publicly available. The platform will allow for “groups” to be created, whereby there is one public address for a group of users, in order to accommodate a large number of roles within an organization. The platform will allow for smart derivatives, which will contain a user-defined collateral amount based on a user-defined margin (full margins and flexible margins). Inputs from external resources will be accessed via oracle services such as Oraclize. Almost all features are discussed at a layman level and technical discussion is omitted from the whitepaper. Some use cases discussed in the document include futures contracts, American call option, and Vanilla interest rate swap. There are a significant number of blockchain-related projects that aim to simplify the process of executing financial contracts. The level of innovation that the project possesses is quite low. The GitHub page is not publicly available.

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?

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:
1.4

Use of Blockchain

FRM is an ERC20 compliant token and is said to be “a stable denominator of value”. However, the details are said to be discussed in the next version of the whitepaper. Smart contracts are written using Firmo’s Chorus, a financial contractual markup language that compiles to code that can be deployed on a blockchain of choice. Chorus is non-Turing-complete and it is stated that, according to several studies and recent events, “smart contracts or code written in general purpose Turing-complete languages frequently contains redundancies or vulnerabilities.” However, references and more in-depth discussion is not provided in the document. A thorough comparison between Firmo and its competitors should be included in the document, as the need to create a custom token is not clear. The project’s governance structure is not thoroughly discussed.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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.)?

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:
1.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 16 pages. The technology plan is presented with fairly low levels of detail. A technical whitepaper is in development, but the document was not available at the time of this review. The business plan is presented with low levels of detail. Thorough market assessment, competitor evaluation, and discussion on growth strategies is absent from the whitepaper. The document primarily focuses on discussing the different features of the platform at a layman level. Overall, the whitepaper lacks clarity and detail.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
Transparency

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
2.0

Roadmap

A development roadmap is not presented in the whitepaper or on the Firmo website.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
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?

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:
1.0

Compliance

There is minimal discussion regarding compliance and legal considerations of the platform and the token sale. There are no disclaimers or content about the risk factors associated with Firmo.

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?

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:
1.4

Company and Team

The core team of 12 individuals are listed on the Firmo website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to LinkedIn profiles for most (two absent). The CEO has a PhD in mathematical finance and is the Assistant Professor in Blockchain Technology at the University of Copenhagen. The Solidity developer is a recent university graduate that has written a thesis about blockchain technology. There are two CTOs, each with blockchain related experience (Appcoin), as well as experience in fintech. Both CTOs are concurrently occupied with CTO positions for another organization (Sail Business Loans). The COO is also the Director of Business Operations at COLU. Overall, the team has a fair balance of individuals that will facilitate technological and business development and a few individuals with blockchain experience, but the level of commitment to the project is questionable.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

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:
3.0

Token Sale

Details of the token sale are not provided.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website