Ignite Ratings

Ignite RATINGS - the world's first, truly decentralised and self-regulating ratings platform and community for digital and traditional assets alike.

About Ignite Ratings

Ignite RATINGS aims to be a decentralized and self-regulating ratings platform and linked investment index which provides blockchain and distributed ledger industries with a source of reliable information on blockchain-based assets, and incentivizes IGNITE token holders with a source of income from a diversified, crowd-managed index, linked to the highest-rated digital assets.
Competitors: Indiegogo, CoinDash, CoinVest, CoinMetro
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Little to none.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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 blockchain Ignite RATINGS platform, as well as Android and IOS apps, will not be available until after the ICO, and further development is planned during 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Ignite RATINGS product, given the large number of users throughout the world of looking to get involved in crypto-currencies and ICOs. The potential / target user-base is large, as awareness of crypto-currency continues to grow and spread within the general population. There is competition in this space and over time will greatly stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues, given the size of the target audience.
Competitors: Indiegogo, CoinDash, CoinVest, CoinMetro

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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.)?

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

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it aims to develop its own platform for ICO reviews and investments. There is some disruptive advantage as, in theory, it would enable further adoption and awarness of blockchain and cryptocurrency, however it will not be overly ‘disruptive’ since it is just an add-on platform to the blockchain/crypto-currency space. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent one, however in theory the same could be accomplished with ETH alone.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.8
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?

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

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very well put together, professional and aesthetic, and provides a good mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is a good length at 40-pages and can be read very quickly due to the amount of presented media. The whitepaper sections include: an abstract, a Securities Law Positions statement, the solution, the platform vision, the technology/methodology, the IGNITE token, the ICO, the roadmap and the team. The business plan and technology behind Ignite Ratings are thoroughly yet concisely explained.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.6
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
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 basic roadmap is given on a quarterly basis, starting with ‘Inception and Fund-raise’. Critical obstacles lie ahead, with actual blockchain development and testing planned only for Q2/Q3 2018 and a public launch not expected until Q4 2018. The roadmap is vague and brief descriptions are provided for the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.
Important Milestones:
Q1 2017 – Initial Concept
Q2 2017 – White Paper Drafting
Q3 2017 – Private Investment
Q4 2017 – Public Token Sale smart contract audit
Q1 2018 – Public Token Sale
Q2 2018 – Beta platform and Testing
Q3 2018 – Deploy iOS and Android Apps
Q4 2018 – Platform Launch

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

The IGNT-token has intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Ignite RATINGS platform, allowing users to actively participate in the ‘Hive’ of reviews and investing options. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically for ‘investing’, payments, and marketplace settlements.
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, and the Android and IOS apps will not be ready until Q3 2018.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and enforced with a registration whitelisting process and manual screening of all platform registrants.
The legal review, secuirites law review, and terms and conditions of the sale are detailed, professional, and thorough, aiming 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. “IGNT acts as proof-of-membership for a software platform that leverages a reward mechanism which, in turn, requires individual IGNT holders to actively participate in order to realise gains for themselves.” **The Ignite RATINGS business model creates a very risky legal situation. Even with detailed attention to compliance and attempts to be deemed not a security this cannot be assured and can easily be deemed security given the business model, thus creating a much higher risk of ICO partipation than other prospective blockchain platforms.**

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.4
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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

Ignite RATINGS has an established team with 13 employees and 6 advisors.
The core team has experience in law, intellectual property, trading markets, analytics, finance/accounting, IT, programming, enterprise software architecture, computer science, investing, software development, marketing, and cybersecurity.
The advisors have backgrounds in IT, tech development, graphics desing, video-game creation/deployment, investing, cryptocurrency and blockchain projects.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. No members of the team are fully dedicated to the project, and most are dedicated to multiple projects outside of Ignite RATINGS platform. Two advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation (PeerCoin & tZERO), two core members have ICO advisment/review but no development experience.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has two committed advisor with previous blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contract experience.
Negatives: No members are fully dedicated to the project, two core members have ICO advisment/review but no development experience, and no blockchain developers are currently part of the team.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
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?

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?

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

Token Sale

Ignite Token (IGNT)
Total Supply: 60Million IGNT, 10 Million for Token Sale, 50 Million IGNT will be locked up for a period of 12 months from the close of the crowdsale. Ignite may elect to distribute proportions of the retained IGNT to its existing token holders by way of secondary offerings
Hard cap: 10 Million IGNT (about $55 million to $70 million)

IGNT ICO Pricing
15 January – 29 January 0.00600 ETH (1 ETH = 166.67 IGNT)
29 January – 5 February 0.00613 ETH (1 ETH = 163.13 IGNT)
5 February – 12 February 0.00627 ETH (1 ETH = 159.49 IGNT)
12 February – 19 February 0.00640 ETH (1 ETH = 156.25 IGNT)
19 February – 26 February 0.00653 ETH (1 ETH = 153.14 IGNT)
26 February onwards 0.00667 ETH (1 ETH = 149.93 IGNT)

Token Distribution
Private Funding 7.5%
Pre-ICO for Staff and Partners 4.2%
Public ICO 5%
Bounty Program 0.33%
IGNITE 83.3%

Token Proceeds Budget
60% Ignite MASTER INDEX seeding fund
40% Development and operating costs broken down:
– 26% Operations
– 21% Development
– 20% Infrastructure
– 16% Marketing
– 10% Business Administration
– 03% Professional Services
– 02% Premises/ Facilities
– 02% Ad Hoc Expenses

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

Product

The blockchain Ignite RATINGS platform, as well as Android and IOS apps, will not be available until after the ICO, and further development is planned during 2018 (see Roadmap).
There is appeal to the Ignite RATINGS product, given the large number of users throughout the world of looking to get involved in crypto-currencies and ICOs. The potential / target user-base is large, as awareness of crypto-currency continues to grow and spread within the general population. There is competition in this space and over time will greatly stiffen as blockchain technology adoption continues, given the size of the target audience.
Competitors: Indiegogo, CoinDash, CoinVest, CoinMetro

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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:
2.0

Use of Blockchain

The project offers some contribution to blockchain development as it aims to develop its own platform for ICO reviews and investments. There is some disruptive advantage as, in theory, it would enable further adoption and awarness of blockchain and cryptocurrency, however it will not be overly ‘disruptive’ since it is just an add-on platform to the blockchain/crypto-currency space. There is need for a custom token as the platform is an independent one, however in theory the same could be accomplished with ETH alone.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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.)?

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 very well put together, professional and aesthetic, and provides a good mixture of media and textual explanation. The whitepaper is a good length at 40-pages and can be read very quickly due to the amount of presented media. The whitepaper sections include: an abstract, a Securities Law Positions statement, the solution, the platform vision, the technology/methodology, the IGNITE token, the ICO, the roadmap and the team. The business plan and technology behind Ignite Ratings are thoroughly yet concisely explained.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
3.8

Roadmap

A basic roadmap is given on a quarterly basis, starting with ‘Inception and Fund-raise’. Critical obstacles lie ahead, with actual blockchain development and testing planned only for Q2/Q3 2018 and a public launch not expected until Q4 2018. The roadmap is vague and brief descriptions are provided for the intermediate steps required to complete each milestone.
Important Milestones:
Q1 2017 – Initial Concept
Q2 2017 – White Paper Drafting
Q3 2017 – Private Investment
Q4 2017 – Public Token Sale smart contract audit
Q1 2018 – Public Token Sale
Q2 2018 – Beta platform and Testing
Q3 2018 – Deploy iOS and Android Apps
Q4 2018 – Platform Launch

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
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:
2.6

Compliance

The IGNT-token has intrinsic value through its planned usage on the Ignite RATINGS platform, allowing users to actively participate in the ‘Hive’ of reviews and investing options. The token’s main utility is as a tradable financial instrument, as it is used specifically for ‘investing’, payments, and marketplace settlements.
The token smart-contract infrastructure will be completed after the ICO, and the Android and IOS apps will not be ready until Q3 2018.
Compliance is addressed with direct statements of AML & KYC Due Diligence and enforced with a registration whitelisting process and manual screening of all platform registrants.
The legal review, secuirites law review, and terms and conditions of the sale are detailed, professional, and thorough, aiming 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. “IGNT acts as proof-of-membership for a software platform that leverages a reward mechanism which, in turn, requires individual IGNT holders to actively participate in order to realise gains for themselves.” **The Ignite RATINGS business model creates a very risky legal situation. Even with detailed attention to compliance and attempts to be deemed not a security this cannot be assured and can easily be deemed security given the business model, thus creating a much higher risk of ICO partipation than other prospective blockchain platforms.**

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
2.4

Company and Team

Ignite RATINGS has an established team with 13 employees and 6 advisors.
The core team has experience in law, intellectual property, trading markets, analytics, finance/accounting, IT, programming, enterprise software architecture, computer science, investing, software development, marketing, and cybersecurity.
The advisors have backgrounds in IT, tech development, graphics desing, video-game creation/deployment, investing, cryptocurrency and blockchain projects.
All team members have verifiable work experience credentials via LinkedIn profiles, however some profiles provide little information. No members of the team are fully dedicated to the project, and most are dedicated to multiple projects outside of Ignite RATINGS platform. Two advisors have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart-contract projects and ICO consultation (PeerCoin & tZERO), two core members have ICO advisment/review but no development experience.
Positives: The core team is well rounded and has two committed advisor with previous blockchain, cryptocurrency, or smart contract experience.
Negatives: No members are fully dedicated to the project, two core members have ICO advisment/review but no development experience, and no blockchain developers are currently part of the team.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Haphazard or uncommitted.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
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:
2.4

Token Sale

Ignite Token (IGNT)
Total Supply: 60Million IGNT, 10 Million for Token Sale, 50 Million IGNT will be locked up for a period of 12 months from the close of the crowdsale. Ignite may elect to distribute proportions of the retained IGNT to its existing token holders by way of secondary offerings
Hard cap: 10 Million IGNT (about $55 million to $70 million)

IGNT ICO Pricing
15 January – 29 January 0.00600 ETH (1 ETH = 166.67 IGNT)
29 January – 5 February 0.00613 ETH (1 ETH = 163.13 IGNT)
5 February – 12 February 0.00627 ETH (1 ETH = 159.49 IGNT)
12 February – 19 February 0.00640 ETH (1 ETH = 156.25 IGNT)
19 February – 26 February 0.00653 ETH (1 ETH = 153.14 IGNT)
26 February onwards 0.00667 ETH (1 ETH = 149.93 IGNT)

Token Distribution
Private Funding 7.5%
Pre-ICO for Staff and Partners 4.2%
Public ICO 5%
Bounty Program 0.33%
IGNITE 83.3%

Token Proceeds Budget
60% Ignite MASTER INDEX seeding fund
40% Development and operating costs broken down:
– 26% Operations
– 21% Development
– 20% Infrastructure
– 16% Marketing
– 10% Business Administration
– 03% Professional Services
– 02% Premises/ Facilities
– 02% Ad Hoc Expenses

Social Media Presence & Following
There is very little community engagement 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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
1.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website