Havven

Havven is a decentralised payment network designed to enable everyday cryptocurrency purchases using a stable medium of exchange.

About Havven

Havven aims to be a decentralized payment network designed to enable everyday cryptocurrency purchases, utilizing a dual token system to reduce price volatility. The system will use a distributed collateral pool which derives its value from the utility of the system, where transactions fees will be dispersed proportionally among collateral holders. Thus transaction fees will be paid to Havven token holders and used to collateralize the network. As transaction volume grows, the value of the platform increases and active participants are rewarded with increased transaction fees.
Competitors: MakerDAO, PetroCoin, SmartCoin, TrueUSD, Tether
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Aims to create collaterlization via other cryptocurrency deposits.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.2
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?

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

Product

There is an Alpha version available for testing. Full blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, and the full platform is planned to be released in March 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Havven product, given the increasing interest in ‘stable’ cryptocurrencies. The potential / target user-base very large and global, since it is the same target audience as cryptocurrency in general. There is some competition as interest and demand for ‘stable’ coins continues to grow and competition over time will stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues.
Competitors: MakerDAO, PetroCoin, SmartCoin, TrueUSD, Tether

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.8
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.

Use of Blockchain

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating an independent cryptocurrency that is ‘stable’ and has a standard and predictable level of ‘value to transfer’. There is a some disruptive advantage as, in theory, the platform is aimed at creating a new type of crypto-backed cryptocurrency. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent platform, and would require the two-token system to create such a stable coin via cryptobacked deposits. There is some contribution to the blockchain ecosystem, in providing a new open protocol cryptocurrency that may be built on and modified as desired by the public.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.6
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?

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?

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 is very well put together and professional, and provides predominantly textual explanations. The whitepaper is 21-pages long and can be read fairly quickly due to the its efficient organization, however it reads much like a textbook. The whitepaper provides high level information and includes only three main sections, each described in detail: Introduction, System Description, and Systems Analysis. The business and technology plans behind Havven are concisely explained, however it is unspecified whether the platform will operate on Ethereum or the project will create its own blockchain.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
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?

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?

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

A very basic roadmap is given on a monthly basis, starting with ‘SEED ROUND’. Many critical obstacles lie ahead as final platform/blockchain development and a public platform launch will occur after the ICO. The roadmap is vague and no descriptions are provided of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
SEPTEMBER 2017 – SEED ROUND (SUCCESSFULLY CLOSED) Funding for legal, development and marketing costs prior to the Token Sale.
NOVEMBER 2017 – WHITE PAPER RELEASE – Technical and financial modelling demonstrating the viability of the system and the path to implementation.
DECEMBER 2017 – TOKEN SALE PAPER – Overview of the token sale
FEBRUARY 2018 – TOKEN SALE – Funding for development and scaling of the platform.
MARCH 2018 – PLATFORM LAUNCH – Launch of the Havven platform, wallet, and stable token

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

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

Compliance

The Havven/Nomin-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the platform, allowing users who commit Havvens to the network to earn rewards in Nomin for stabilizing the token. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means to ‘transfer value’ .
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, as well as mobile apps, however alpha-pilot testing is currently in-progress.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and enforced with a manual screening process. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and are not viewed as securities. The terms and conditions of the sale are aim to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and providing a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.8
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?

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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.

Company and Team

Havven has an established team with 16 employees and 12 advisors.
The core team has experience in Finance, Business Management, Online Marketing, blockchain/cryptocurrency/smart-contract development, Project Management, business development, Sales, IT, programming, engineering, project management, graphic design, and network security architecture.
The advisors have backgrounds in law, FinTech, investments, ICO advisement, tech development, and cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contracts projects.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Most members of the team appear to be dedicated to multiple projects outside of Havven. Many of the core team members and advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects, investing, and ICO consultation/launch.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has previous experience in the field of blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contracts and has four blockchain engineers.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.0
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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

Havven Token (Havvens)
Token Sale Price: A proportional distribution mechanism will be used for the sale. Each participant will receive an allocation proportional to their purchase amount, after factoring in any discounts.
Hard Cap: $ 30,000,000 USD
Soft Cap: Achieved in Seed round funding
Token Supply: 100,000,000 Havvens in total.

Token distribution:
60% Token Sale
20% Team & Advisors Team and advisor vesting (All team tokens will vest over a two year period, advisors will vest over 12 months. This is to ensure that long term incentives are maintained.)
12% Foundation
5% Partnership Incentives
3% Bounties & Marketing Incentives

Bonus:
ESCROW PERIOD DISCOUNT to participants who select to escrow their havvens for a fxed period
18 months 20%
12 months 15%
6 months 10%
3 months 5%

Use of funds
The funds raised in the sale will be used to support the development of the network and to incentivise market participants to integrate with the Havven protocol.

Social Media Presence & Following
There is little community engagment and reception.

Product

There is an Alpha version available for testing. Full blockchain development/testing for the platform is planned to occur after the ICO, and the full platform is planned to be released in March 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Havven product, given the increasing interest in ‘stable’ cryptocurrencies. The potential / target user-base very large and global, since it is the same target audience as cryptocurrency in general. There is some competition as interest and demand for ‘stable’ coins continues to grow and competition over time will stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues.
Competitors: MakerDAO, PetroCoin, SmartCoin, TrueUSD, Tether

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
Product Score:
3.2

Use of Blockchain

The project’s contribution to blockchain development is in creating an independent cryptocurrency that is ‘stable’ and has a standard and predictable level of ‘value to transfer’. There is a some disruptive advantage as, in theory, the platform is aimed at creating a new type of crypto-backed cryptocurrency. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent platform, and would require the two-token system to create such a stable coin via cryptobacked deposits. There is some contribution to the blockchain ecosystem, in providing a new open protocol cryptocurrency that may be built on and modified as desired by the public.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very well put together and professional, and provides predominantly textual explanations. The whitepaper is 21-pages long and can be read fairly quickly due to the its efficient organization, however it reads much like a textbook. The whitepaper provides high level information and includes only three main sections, each described in detail: Introduction, System Description, and Systems Analysis. The business and technology plans behind Havven are concisely explained, however it is unspecified whether the platform will operate on Ethereum or the project will create its own blockchain.

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?

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?

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:
3.6

Roadmap

A very basic roadmap is given on a monthly basis, starting with ‘SEED ROUND’. Many critical obstacles lie ahead as final platform/blockchain development and a public platform launch will occur after the ICO. The roadmap is vague and no descriptions are provided of the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.

Roadmap:
SEPTEMBER 2017 – SEED ROUND (SUCCESSFULLY CLOSED) Funding for legal, development and marketing costs prior to the Token Sale.
NOVEMBER 2017 – WHITE PAPER RELEASE – Technical and financial modelling demonstrating the viability of the system and the path to implementation.
DECEMBER 2017 – TOKEN SALE PAPER – Overview of the token sale
FEBRUARY 2018 – TOKEN SALE – Funding for development and scaling of the platform.
MARCH 2018 – PLATFORM LAUNCH – Launch of the Havven platform, wallet, and stable token

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
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?

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?

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.8

Compliance

The Havven/Nomin-tokens have intrinsic value through their planned usage on the platform, allowing users who commit Havvens to the network to earn rewards in Nomin for stabilizing the token. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically as a means to ‘transfer value’ .
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, as well as mobile apps, however alpha-pilot testing is currently in-progress.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and enforced with a manual screening process. The legal disclaimer states that the tokens are intended for use as functional utility tokens and are not viewed as securities. The terms and conditions of the sale are aim to absolve the company of any liability regarding the ICO and any problems that may occur, and providing a general statment that the tokens are not to be deemed a security.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

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

Company and Team

Havven has an established team with 16 employees and 12 advisors.
The core team has experience in Finance, Business Management, Online Marketing, blockchain/cryptocurrency/smart-contract development, Project Management, business development, Sales, IT, programming, engineering, project management, graphic design, and network security architecture.
The advisors have backgrounds in law, FinTech, investments, ICO advisement, tech development, and cryptocurrency/blockchain/smart-contracts projects.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. Most members of the team appear to be dedicated to multiple projects outside of Havven. Many of the core team members and advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects, investing, and ICO consultation/launch.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has previous experience in the field of blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contracts and has four blockchain engineers.
Negatives: Not all members are fully dedicated to the project.

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?

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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
3.8

Token Sale

Havven Token (Havvens)
Token Sale Price: A proportional distribution mechanism will be used for the sale. Each participant will receive an allocation proportional to their purchase amount, after factoring in any discounts.
Hard Cap: $ 30,000,000 USD
Soft Cap: Achieved in Seed round funding
Token Supply: 100,000,000 Havvens in total.

Token distribution:
60% Token Sale
20% Team & Advisors Team and advisor vesting (All team tokens will vest over a two year period, advisors will vest over 12 months. This is to ensure that long term incentives are maintained.)
12% Foundation
5% Partnership Incentives
3% Bounties & Marketing Incentives

Bonus:
ESCROW PERIOD DISCOUNT to participants who select to escrow their havvens for a fxed period
18 months 20%
12 months 15%
6 months 10%
3 months 5%

Use of funds
The funds raised in the sale will be used to support the development of the network and to incentivise market participants to integrate with the Havven protocol.

Social Media Presence & Following
There is little community engagment and reception.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website