Invictus Hyperion Fund

Invictus Capital specializes in cryptocurrency investments and provides a complete range of fund choices for the investor wanting diversified exposure to the cryptocurrency market.

About Invictus Hyperion Fund

Invictus Capital aims to develop Hyperion Fund, a venture capital fund that allows token holders to diversify their investments with early stage blockchain projects via SAFTs, pre-sales, initial coin offerings (ICOs). IHF tokens will represent a participants share in the portfolio. There is another ICO named Hyperion Fund (HWT), a renewable energy company which is unrelated to Invictus.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.6
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?

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

The aim of the fund are to reduce the barrier to entry for early stage funding while providing professional due diligence and supporting blockchain-related endevours. Capital has previously launched an ICO (CRYPTO20), which had “one of the top 25 raises of all time at its conclusion”. The Hyperion Fund will not invest in projects that already have a listed token. The fund will operate without exit fees, broker fees, and advice fees. Fees will be strictly performance-based and will constitute 12.5% of realized returns per quarter. The fund aims to give access to early-stage investment opportunities that “historically, were only available to wealthy accredited investors and first-world venture capitalists.”
It is stated that the fund will only invest in projects that satisfy the following criteria:

* A cohesive team with a track record of achievement
* Presence of technical and business development aptitudes within the team
* A minimum viable product (MVP)
* Indication of personal commitment to develop the project
* A well-defined token vesting strategy

A public GitHub page is absent and a discussion on potential competitors is not included in the whitepaper. Competitors include DeHedge Funds and Token Fund. There is brief content in the whitepaper that addresses these competitors. However, comparison with competitors are presented with fairly low levels of detail. DeHedge Fund has a greater token allocation for its team (20% compared to 1% with Hyperion Fund) and there are more service fees with Token Fund.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.6
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
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?

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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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

IHF is an ERC20 compliant token. Each token represents “a portion of the underlying assets within the fund”. The use of blockchain technology does not extend past the creation/distribution of tokens. There is no significant breakthrough in blockchain technology that provides value to other projects. As an asset-backed token, the justification for creating a custom token is evident. IHF is an ERC20 compliant token. Each token represents “a portion of the underlying assets within the fund”. The use of blockchain technology does not extend past the creation/distribution of tokens. There is no significant breakthrough in blockchain technology that provides value to other projects. The need to create a custom token is primarily for funding purposes. It is not clearly stated whether token holders receive any sort of voting rights. It is stated that the fund managers will “act in the interests of fund participants and the community by engaging with pre-ICO projects”. As governance structure is not outlined, the service is seemingly centralized.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.0
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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 fairly dense with written content. The technology plan is presented with moderate levels of detail, considering the scope of the project. The fund will use proprietary technology, Titan AI, for due diligence and investment opportunity assessment. Brief discussion of how this tool is used with Latent Dirichlet Allocation (a statistical model) for market insight is included in the whitepaper. Titan AI will also be used for plagiarism detection and Infer will be used for code quality analysis. Details of how Infer will be used is discussed with much less detail when compared content related to Titan AI. It is stated that Invictus Capital will “tailor” Infer to allow it to assess Solidity smart contracts. Further details are not provided. There is a lack of a structured business plan. This is showcased with the lack of detail provided with the development roadmap. Much of the milestones presented focused on technology developments that have already been achieved (primarily due to the fact that the technological solutions are publicly available), and do not contain business-related goals. However, token economy is described with high levels of detail, with thorough discussion on the “buy-and-burn” procedure and the fee structure. The buy-and-burn procedure consists of the organization purchasing IHF tokens using 50% of the returns realized on investments within each quarter, after reaching a threshold of $30M in Adjusted Net Asset Valuation (ANAV).

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

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

The development roadmap presented in the whitepaper lacks detail. No dates are included and the roadmap consists of a list of projects (most of which are tools which have already been developed and publicly available). Predictive discovery and analysis is stated to be under development and completed in April. The tools will not be released to the public but it is stated that the “key results produced from these tools” will be made avilable when finalized. However, these key findings have yet to be released. The primary service that the fund relies on is Titan AI, a custom built machine learning analysis tool. Overall, some of the tools in which the fund uses for assessement are proprietary/in development.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.8
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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 whitepaper contains a disclaimer section that is approximately 1 page in length. It is stated that the smart contract code will be audited by Hosho Group. Further legal content is provided towards the end of the whitepaper which spans approximately 3 pages. Content is thorough and professionally written.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.2
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?

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?

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

Invictus Capital is the parent company of Hyperion and is based in the Cayman Islands. There are 17 individuals that have Invictus Capital listed on their LinkedIn profile. The parent company, Invictus Capital has listed team members but there is no distinction between individuals working on the Hyperion Fund and/or Invictus Capital. In other words, specifically with respect to the Hyperion Fund, there is little information regarding team members. Nearly all team members on the Invictus Capital team are concurrently involved with CRYPTO20.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.2
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Token Sale

The allocation of IHF tokens is as the following: 97.5% is for ICO participants, 1.5% is for the Invictus Capital team, and 1.0% is for legal, security and marketing fees. The allocation of funds is described well. The funds received from the ICO will be allocated to project investments (98%) and operational expenses (2%). The soft cap is $2MM USD and the hard cap is $15MM USD, where 1 IHF = $0.10 USD. It is stated that the size of the hard cap has been “selected as an optimum fund size that can be responsibly managed to achieve high returns”. However, no further details are provided. Other aspects of the token economy are also discussed in the document. It is stated that when the fund has reached a size of $30MM USD, the fund will “buy-and-burn IHF tokens to the value of 50% of the returns realized quarterly” while 37.5% is reinvested and 12.5% is taken as a performance fee. The public token sale takes place on April 20, 2018. The social media presence of the organization has moderate levels of reception accross major social media platforms.

Product

The aim of the fund are to reduce the barrier to entry for early stage funding while providing professional due diligence and supporting blockchain-related endevours. Capital has previously launched an ICO (CRYPTO20), which had “one of the top 25 raises of all time at its conclusion”. The Hyperion Fund will not invest in projects that already have a listed token. The fund will operate without exit fees, broker fees, and advice fees. Fees will be strictly performance-based and will constitute 12.5% of realized returns per quarter. The fund aims to give access to early-stage investment opportunities that “historically, were only available to wealthy accredited investors and first-world venture capitalists.”
It is stated that the fund will only invest in projects that satisfy the following criteria:

* A cohesive team with a track record of achievement
* Presence of technical and business development aptitudes within the team
* A minimum viable product (MVP)
* Indication of personal commitment to develop the project
* A well-defined token vesting strategy

A public GitHub page is absent and a discussion on potential competitors is not included in the whitepaper. Competitors include DeHedge Funds and Token Fund. There is brief content in the whitepaper that addresses these competitors. However, comparison with competitors are presented with fairly low levels of detail. DeHedge Fund has a greater token allocation for its team (20% compared to 1% with Hyperion Fund) and there are more service fees with Token Fund.

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?

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:
1.6

Use of Blockchain

IHF is an ERC20 compliant token. Each token represents “a portion of the underlying assets within the fund”. The use of blockchain technology does not extend past the creation/distribution of tokens. There is no significant breakthrough in blockchain technology that provides value to other projects. As an asset-backed token, the justification for creating a custom token is evident. IHF is an ERC20 compliant token. Each token represents “a portion of the underlying assets within the fund”. The use of blockchain technology does not extend past the creation/distribution of tokens. There is no significant breakthrough in blockchain technology that provides value to other projects. The need to create a custom token is primarily for funding purposes. It is not clearly stated whether token holders receive any sort of voting rights. It is stated that the fund managers will “act in the interests of fund participants and the community by engaging with pre-ICO projects”. As governance structure is not outlined, the service is seemingly centralized.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
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?

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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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:
1.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is fairly dense with written content. The technology plan is presented with moderate levels of detail, considering the scope of the project. The fund will use proprietary technology, Titan AI, for due diligence and investment opportunity assessment. Brief discussion of how this tool is used with Latent Dirichlet Allocation (a statistical model) for market insight is included in the whitepaper. Titan AI will also be used for plagiarism detection and Infer will be used for code quality analysis. Details of how Infer will be used is discussed with much less detail when compared content related to Titan AI. It is stated that Invictus Capital will “tailor” Infer to allow it to assess Solidity smart contracts. Further details are not provided. There is a lack of a structured business plan. This is showcased with the lack of detail provided with the development roadmap. Much of the milestones presented focused on technology developments that have already been achieved (primarily due to the fact that the technological solutions are publicly available), and do not contain business-related goals. However, token economy is described with high levels of detail, with thorough discussion on the “buy-and-burn” procedure and the fee structure. The buy-and-burn procedure consists of the organization purchasing IHF tokens using 50% of the returns realized on investments within each quarter, after reaching a threshold of $30M in Adjusted Net Asset Valuation (ANAV).

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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:
3.0

Roadmap

The development roadmap presented in the whitepaper lacks detail. No dates are included and the roadmap consists of a list of projects (most of which are tools which have already been developed and publicly available). Predictive discovery and analysis is stated to be under development and completed in April. The tools will not be released to the public but it is stated that the “key results produced from these tools” will be made avilable when finalized. However, these key findings have yet to be released. The primary service that the fund relies on is Titan AI, a custom built machine learning analysis tool. Overall, some of the tools in which the fund uses for assessement are proprietary/in development.

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?

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?

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:
2.0

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a disclaimer section that is approximately 1 page in length. It is stated that the smart contract code will be audited by Hosho Group. Further legal content is provided towards the end of the whitepaper which spans approximately 3 pages. Content is thorough and professionally written.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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:
2.8

Company and Team

Invictus Capital is the parent company of Hyperion and is based in the Cayman Islands. There are 17 individuals that have Invictus Capital listed on their LinkedIn profile. The parent company, Invictus Capital has listed team members but there is no distinction between individuals working on the Hyperion Fund and/or Invictus Capital. In other words, specifically with respect to the Hyperion Fund, there is little information regarding team members. Nearly all team members on the Invictus Capital team are concurrently involved with CRYPTO20.

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?

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?

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:
3.2

Token Sale

The allocation of IHF tokens is as the following: 97.5% is for ICO participants, 1.5% is for the Invictus Capital team, and 1.0% is for legal, security and marketing fees. The allocation of funds is described well. The funds received from the ICO will be allocated to project investments (98%) and operational expenses (2%). The soft cap is $2MM USD and the hard cap is $15MM USD, where 1 IHF = $0.10 USD. It is stated that the size of the hard cap has been “selected as an optimum fund size that can be responsibly managed to achieve high returns”. However, no further details are provided. Other aspects of the token economy are also discussed in the document. It is stated that when the fund has reached a size of $30MM USD, the fund will “buy-and-burn IHF tokens to the value of 50% of the returns realized quarterly” while 37.5% is reinvested and 12.5% is taken as a performance fee. The public token sale takes place on April 20, 2018. The social media presence of the organization has moderate levels of reception accross major social media platforms.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.
Token Sale Score:
3.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website