Graft

GRAFT Blockchain enables using any cryptocurrency at the Point of Sale. Natively

About Graft

GRAFT tokens are proposed to be a means of exchange that is widely accepted by mainstream merchants. Users will be able to connect their existing cryptocurrency wallets, as well as their credit cards to the GRAFT wallet. The GRAFT blockchain facilitates the transaction.

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?

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

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Product

GRAFT’s target user base is the mass market. GRAFT aims to become not just a means of exchange, but one that is widely adopted, seamlessly integrating its platform into currently existing solutions. There are several competitors, most notably TenX, from which GRAFT distinguishes itself by stating that they “think about both sides of typical payment transaction: buyer and merchant”, allowing the merchant to receive payment in cryptocurrency as opposed to just fiat. The GitHub page, which can be found on the GRAFT website, shows moderate levels of content and activity.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.0
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

GRAFT is a fork of Monero and a means of exchange. They will be used for “real-time payment authorizations, transfer of funds, and settlement between buyers and merchants”. Scalability is said to be addressed by decreasing the block creation interval (2 minutes) and removing the block size limits. GRAFT admits that this strategy is not unique to GRAFT, however, this process takes place on “supernodes which validate and authorize transactions in real time”. GRAFT claims that this design allows for large spikes in transactions, which would take place during seasonal events, for example.

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper contains a fair amount of content and takes a considerable time to read and comprehend. Overall, the whitepaper discusses how GRAFT will operate on a logistical level, but is severely lacking in technical detail, especially considering that GRAFT wishes to compete with other cryptocurrencies that aim to become widely adopted means of exchange and have been in development for a much longer period of time. From a business perspective, GRAFT provides a sufficiently detailed plan in the whitepaper, including proposed merchant fees, examples of accepted payment methods, etc.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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

A development roadmap is not provided in the whitepaper, although a distinctly vague and seemingly non-committal roadmap appears on the GRAFT website. The roadmap spans from 2017 to 2021 and contains fewer than 15 milestones, given without descriptions or clearly outlined estimated completion dates.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.2
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?

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 attention to compliance issues and no mention of any disclaimers in the whitepaper. This is strange since on the GRAFT website, it shows that GRAFT possesses legal and strategy partners, however, their expertise does not seem to show in the whitepaper.

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?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

The team is not presented in the whitepaper, but team members are listed on the website, along with profile pictures, short descriptions, and links to their LinkedIn profiles. The team’s skill set is tilted towards technology as opposed to business. Those with business experience seem to prefer working with startup companies and commonly refer to themselves as entrepreneurial. A few of the developers on the team have had experience developing smart contracts.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.8
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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 GRFT tokens is 1,844,674,400 (55% is for main emission through mining, 1% is for the pre-sale, 4% is for marketing, 5% is for the public token sale, 8% is for the founders and team, and 27% is reserved). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $25MM, where 1 GRFT = 0.00002620 BTC. The allocation of funds is not described in the whitepaper nor the website. The token sale takes place from January 18, 2018 to February 18, 2018.

Product

GRAFT’s target user base is the mass market. GRAFT aims to become not just a means of exchange, but one that is widely adopted, seamlessly integrating its platform into currently existing solutions. There are several competitors, most notably TenX, from which GRAFT distinguishes itself by stating that they “think about both sides of typical payment transaction: buyer and merchant”, allowing the merchant to receive payment in cryptocurrency as opposed to just fiat. The GitHub page, which can be found on the GRAFT website, shows moderate levels of content and activity.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product 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.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
Product Score:
3.0

Use of Blockchain

GRAFT is a fork of Monero and a means of exchange. They will be used for “real-time payment authorizations, transfer of funds, and settlement between buyers and merchants”. Scalability is said to be addressed by decreasing the block creation interval (2 minutes) and removing the block size limits. GRAFT admits that this strategy is not unique to GRAFT, however, this process takes place on “supernodes which validate and authorize transactions in real time”. GRAFT claims that this design allows for large spikes in transactions, which would take place during seasonal events, for example.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
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.)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.0

Whitepaper

The whitepaper contains a fair amount of content and takes a considerable time to read and comprehend. Overall, the whitepaper discusses how GRAFT will operate on a logistical level, but is severely lacking in technical detail, especially considering that GRAFT wishes to compete with other cryptocurrencies that aim to become widely adopted means of exchange and have been in development for a much longer period of time. From a business perspective, GRAFT provides a sufficiently detailed plan in the whitepaper, including proposed merchant fees, examples of accepted payment methods, etc.

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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?

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

Roadmap

A development roadmap is not provided in the whitepaper, although a distinctly vague and seemingly non-committal roadmap appears on the GRAFT website. The roadmap spans from 2017 to 2021 and contains fewer than 15 milestones, given without descriptions or clearly outlined estimated completion dates.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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:
2.2

Compliance

There is minimal attention to compliance issues and no mention of any disclaimers in the whitepaper. This is strange since on the GRAFT website, it shows that GRAFT possesses legal and strategy partners, however, their expertise does not seem to show in the whitepaper.

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?

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:
2.2

Company and Team

The team is not presented in the whitepaper, but team members are listed on the website, along with profile pictures, short descriptions, and links to their LinkedIn profiles. The team’s skill set is tilted towards technology as opposed to business. Those with business experience seem to prefer working with startup companies and commonly refer to themselves as entrepreneurial. A few of the developers on the team have had experience developing smart contracts.

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?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Sale

The total number of GRFT tokens is 1,844,674,400 (55% is for main emission through mining, 1% is for the pre-sale, 4% is for marketing, 5% is for the public token sale, 8% is for the founders and team, and 27% is reserved). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $25MM, where 1 GRFT = 0.00002620 BTC. The allocation of funds is not described in the whitepaper nor the website. The token sale takes place from January 18, 2018 to February 18, 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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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:
1.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website