ICO Rating

Health Nexus

A healthcare-safe blockchain to lower costs and empower patients and providers across the globe

About Health Nexus

Health Nexus, developed by SimplyVital Health, is a permission-based blockchain platform targeted towards the health care industry. SimplyVital Health aims to create an ecosystem of applications “for every piece of the care continuum such as health care facilities, insurance agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutions”.

2.8
Product

Product

SimplyVital Health wishes to bring blockchain technology to the health care industry. This is a sector that has quite a significant level of competition, although the target user base would be rather large. The company has an existing blockchain product, ConnectingCare. The GitHub page, which is provided in the whitepaper, shows moderate levels of content but low levels of activity.

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?

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.
2.8
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

HLTH is an ERC20 compliant token. It is stated that the reason that SimpleyVital Health has decided to create a custom token as opposed to using an already existing platform with a permissioned ledger and private transactions, was because “most of these [platforms] were not built with health care input and are still fairly untested when compared to the main branch of Ethereum”. However, this is somewhat of a flawed argument since their proposed solution is also untested, to a degree that exceeds existing solutions. It is also not specified what is meant by “health care input” and why this would not be possible using existing platforms.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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.
2.8
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is heavily focused on the technological details of the platform, as opposed to the business plan. In fact, most of the information reagrding the token sale appears to be absent from the whitepaper and even the SimplyVital Health website. Overall, the whitepaper is quite dense with technical detail and takes considerable time to read and understand. There are a few areas where the discussion could be more concise and to the point, instead of going into nonexistent possibilities of how the platform could be used and other related projects.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
2.8
Roadmap

Roadmap

The roadmap is fairly detailed and spans 4 years. Each milestone is discussed in sufficient detail. The milestones are divided into four phases, each of which is estimated to take approximately 1 year to accomplish. Goals outlined in the roadmap put a considerable emphasis on technological development milestones.

Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
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.
2.2
Compliance

Compliance

There is a short disclaimer paragraph near the beginning of the whitepaper that is there for the purposes of risk mitigation and contains statements such as: “SimplyVital reserves the right to abandon Health Nexus at any time and to change the implementation of Health Nexus contemplated by this whitepaper at any time”. However there is no mention as to whether the HLTH token is to be considered a security.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
3.0
Company and Team

Company and Team

The SimplyVital Health website lists 7 team members, with profile pictures, job titles, brief background descriptions, and links to LinkedIn profiles. The team consists primarily of individuals with a background in business, along with two developers, one of whom has previous blockchain development experience at Capital One.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
2.0
Token Sale

Token Sale

The total number of HLTH tokens is 200 million. Token and fund allocation was not found on the whitepaper or the website. The soft cap is $5MM USD and the hard cap is $25MM USD, where 1 HLTH = $0.40 USD. The token sale takes place from February 22, 2018 to March 22, 2018.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Non-existent, or leaving a bad impression.

Product

SimplyVital Health wishes to bring blockchain technology to the health care industry. This is a sector that has quite a significant level of competition, although the target user base would be rather large. The company has an existing blockchain product, ConnectingCare. The GitHub page, which is provided in the whitepaper, shows moderate levels of content but low levels of activity.

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?

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:
2.8

Use of Blockchain

HLTH is an ERC20 compliant token. It is stated that the reason that SimpleyVital Health has decided to create a custom token as opposed to using an already existing platform with a permissioned ledger and private transactions, was because “most of these [platforms] were not built with health care input and are still fairly untested when compared to the main branch of Ethereum”. However, this is somewhat of a flawed argument since their proposed solution is also untested, to a degree that exceeds existing solutions. It is also not specified what is meant by “health care input” and why this would not be possible using existing platforms.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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:
2.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is heavily focused on the technological details of the platform, as opposed to the business plan. In fact, most of the information reagrding the token sale appears to be absent from the whitepaper and even the SimplyVital Health website. Overall, the whitepaper is quite dense with technical detail and takes considerable time to read and understand. There are a few areas where the discussion could be more concise and to the point, instead of going into nonexistent possibilities of how the platform could be used and other related projects.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
2.8

Roadmap

The roadmap is fairly detailed and spans 4 years. Each milestone is discussed in sufficient detail. The milestones are divided into four phases, each of which is estimated to take approximately 1 year to accomplish. Goals outlined in the roadmap put a considerable emphasis on technological development milestones.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
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:
2.8

Compliance

There is a short disclaimer paragraph near the beginning of the whitepaper that is there for the purposes of risk mitigation and contains statements such as: “SimplyVital reserves the right to abandon Health Nexus at any time and to change the implementation of Health Nexus contemplated by this whitepaper at any time”. However there is no mention as to whether the HLTH token is to be considered 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)?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
2.2

Company and Team

The SimplyVital Health website lists 7 team members, with profile pictures, job titles, brief background descriptions, and links to LinkedIn profiles. The team consists primarily of individuals with a background in business, along with two developers, one of whom has previous blockchain development experience at Capital One.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
3.0

Token Sale

The total number of HLTH tokens is 200 million. Token and fund allocation was not found on the whitepaper or the website. The soft cap is $5MM USD and the hard cap is $25MM USD, where 1 HLTH = $0.40 USD. The token sale takes place from February 22, 2018 to March 22, 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Non-existent, or leaving a bad impression.
Token Sale Score:
2.0