Kryll

Kryll.io bring professional trading tools to everyone by providing a simple yet powerful drag n'drop strategy builder.

About Kryll

Kryll aims to create a trading platform that is easy to use and based on a block flow visual interface. The main categories for the blocks that are planned to be implemented into the platform are market trends, trading actions, signals, operators (IF, ELSE, AND, etc), and notifications. Blocks are connected by flows, which “describes the confluence of signals, operators and relevant data determining a particular strategy”. KRL tokens are used to implement strategies on live trades.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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

The market for easy-to-use cryptocurrency trading tools is quite saturated. Furthermore, the features that Kryll plans to implement on the platform are hardly innovative. It is stated that “collective intelligence is a huge asset that’ll make all of us more successful in the trading market”, thus trading strategies are planned to be able to be shared/rented through a marketplace. There is an MVP available through the Kryll website.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.4
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

KRL is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to apply strategies for live trades. There is a significant lack of detail regarding the “energy” that is required to fuel trading strategies (monetary value of MFT tokens required for using trading strategies). As such, KRL tokens act primarily as a utility token. More information is required regarding the token economy in order to adequately assess the value proposition of the token. It is stated that participants of the ICO will have access to the platform’s alpha version (funders edition).

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.2
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 19 pages. The document lacks a professional tone and is fairly vague with respect to the technical aspects of the platform. The whitepaper primarily serves to list the features of the platform, rather than discuss the technical specifics of how the platform will operate. The business plans also lacks detail: the entirety of the business plan is contained within two paragraphs that span approximately a quarter of a page.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

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 roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2018 to 2020 and contains moderate levels of detail. 7 milestones are presented without further explanations as to what they entail. Additional milestones are included which will “depend on the final funding amount” (unspecified). Most of these additional milestones are quite vague and include goals such as “advanced technical analysis” and “machine learning applied to market analysis”. The Kryll companion app is planned to launch in November 2018 followed by the open beta version of Kryll in December 2018. Kryll V1 is planned to be released early 2019.

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)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

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

There is a section towards the end of the document discussing legal considerations that spans approximately 2 pages and covers topics such as rights and liabilities, risk factors, sale restrictions, and the KYC/AML procedure that Kryll plans to use for its token sale. Residents (non-accredited investors) from the following jurisdictions will not be able to participate in the token sale: The United States, Canada, South Korea, and China.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Company and Team

The parent company, Cryptense S.A.S, is registered in France and received 200K euros in funding in December 2017. The team’s 8 members are listed on the Kryll.io website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. Involvement with blockchain for most team members is from a hobby/investor perspective. There is a single team member responsible for front-end development and another for back-end development. The team is not fully established, as it is stated that the organization will “plan to get at least four more people on board as well a collaborations with experts” in the future.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

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

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
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?

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

Token Sale

The total number of KRL tokens is 220 million (65% is for the ICO, 13% is for the team, 5% is for legal fees and advisors, 5% is for press relations, 10% is for user acquisition contests, and 2% is for bounties). Vesting periods are not clearly indicated. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (54% is for platform development, 18% is for marketing expenses, 15% is for exchange partnerships, 9% is for operational expenses, 3% is for the security reserve, and 1% is for legal expenses). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $29MM USD, where 1 KRL = $0.20 USD. The token sale takes place from February 7, 2018 to March 20, 2018.

Product

The market for easy-to-use cryptocurrency trading tools is quite saturated. Furthermore, the features that Kryll plans to implement on the platform are hardly innovative. It is stated that “collective intelligence is a huge asset that’ll make all of us more successful in the trading market”, thus trading strategies are planned to be able to be shared/rented through a marketplace. There is an MVP available through the Kryll website.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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:
2.2

Use of Blockchain

KRL is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to apply strategies for live trades. There is a significant lack of detail regarding the “energy” that is required to fuel trading strategies (monetary value of MFT tokens required for using trading strategies). As such, KRL tokens act primarily as a utility token. More information is required regarding the token economy in order to adequately assess the value proposition of the token. It is stated that participants of the ICO will have access to the platform’s alpha version (funders edition).

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?

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.)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.4

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 19 pages. The document lacks a professional tone and is fairly vague with respect to the technical aspects of the platform. The whitepaper primarily serves to list the features of the platform, rather than discuss the technical specifics of how the platform will operate. The business plans also lacks detail: the entirety of the business plan is contained within two paragraphs that span approximately a quarter of a page.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
2.2

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2018 to 2020 and contains moderate levels of detail. 7 milestones are presented without further explanations as to what they entail. Additional milestones are included which will “depend on the final funding amount” (unspecified). Most of these additional milestones are quite vague and include goals such as “advanced technical analysis” and “machine learning applied to market analysis”. The Kryll companion app is planned to launch in November 2018 followed by the open beta version of Kryll in December 2018. Kryll V1 is planned to be released early 2019.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
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?

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

There is a section towards the end of the document discussing legal considerations that spans approximately 2 pages and covers topics such as rights and liabilities, risk factors, sale restrictions, and the KYC/AML procedure that Kryll plans to use for its token sale. Residents (non-accredited investors) from the following jurisdictions will not be able to participate in the token sale: The United States, Canada, South Korea, and China.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

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:
2.8

Company and Team

The parent company, Cryptense S.A.S, is registered in France and received 200K euros in funding in December 2017. The team’s 8 members are listed on the Kryll.io website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. Involvement with blockchain for most team members is from a hobby/investor perspective. There is a single team member responsible for front-end development and another for back-end development. The team is not fully established, as it is stated that the organization will “plan to get at least four more people on board as well a collaborations with experts” in the future.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Sale

The total number of KRL tokens is 220 million (65% is for the ICO, 13% is for the team, 5% is for legal fees and advisors, 5% is for press relations, 10% is for user acquisition contests, and 2% is for bounties). Vesting periods are not clearly indicated. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (54% is for platform development, 18% is for marketing expenses, 15% is for exchange partnerships, 9% is for operational expenses, 3% is for the security reserve, and 1% is for legal expenses). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $29MM USD, where 1 KRL = $0.20 USD. The token sale takes place from February 7, 2018 to March 20, 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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

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

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website