Lucyd

Next generation smartglasses on a decentralized AR ecosystem.

About Lucyd

Lucyd plans to develop augmented-reality (AR) enabled smartglasses. There will also be a marketplace intended to drive third party app development and user engagement using LCD tokens, which can be used to purchase products from Lucyd.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Product

Lucyd states that the organization already possesses 13 patents related to AR and smartglasses. However, a prototype of the device has yet to be produced. The market for AR is in its infancy and is surely set to see massive growth in the coming years. However, although the target user base has large growth potential, there is sizable competition within the AR space, particularly from well-established companies with access to considerable funds.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.4
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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

LCD is an ERC20 compliant token that is used to raise funds for the platform and acts as a means of exchange in the Lucyd ecosystem, enabling the purchase of hardware and software (applications). It is also stated that developers will earn LCD based on community feedback, and users will earn LCD by engaging with the platform, for example, by generating reviews. There is no notable need to create a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.6
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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 36 pages long and much of the content is focused not on the product, but rather on topics such as the team, an overview of augmented reality, and the platform’s legal framework. The technology plan spans approximately a single page and the level of technical detail is quite low. Most of the technology related discussion is simply a list of product features. The business plan is marginally more detailed, with a section for the market overview and Lucyd’s business strategy.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the Lucyd whitepaper is quite vague and spans from February 2018 to Q1 2019. Each milestone contains a single sentence in order to give more detail as to what it entails. Goals already accomplished include the product related patents and team formation. Future developments include the creation of the prototype device and the development of applications (September 2018).

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?

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?

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?

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

Compliance

It is stated that every six months following the token issue date, there will be a “semi-annual, third party-reviewed report to token holders that will summarize the performance ofLucyd”. It is explicitly stated that LCD tokens should not be considered securities. There is a section of the whitepaper that focuses on discussing the legality of the platform, which is quite long at 6 pages, sufficiently detailed, and professionally written.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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

The 8 team members are listed in the whitepaper along with profile pictures and quite lengthy descriptions of each one’s educational and professional background. The team’s skill set is geared towards business and product development as opposed to technology. It is interesting to note that while most team members have quite lengthy background descriptions, sometimes multiple paragraphs, the background summary provided for the lead blockchain developer is a single sentence. Viewing this individual’s profile in LinkedIn shows that Lucyd is not listed, indicating not only a lack of commitment, but also a lack of competency regarding software/smart contract development for the team overall.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
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?

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 total number of LCD tokens is 100 million (50% is for sale, 30% is for the Lucyd team, 10% is for the founding team, and 10% is for partners). The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail. The soft cap is $1.5MM USD and the hard cap is $10MM USD, where 1 LCD = $0.25 USD. The token sale takes place on February 28, 2018.

Product

Lucyd states that the organization already possesses 13 patents related to AR and smartglasses. However, a prototype of the device has yet to be produced. The market for AR is in its infancy and is surely set to see massive growth in the coming years. However, although the target user base has large growth potential, there is sizable competition within the AR space, particularly from well-established companies with access to considerable funds.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Product Score:
2.0

Use of Blockchain

LCD is an ERC20 compliant token that is used to raise funds for the platform and acts as a means of exchange in the Lucyd ecosystem, enabling the purchase of hardware and software (applications). It is also stated that developers will earn LCD based on community feedback, and users will earn LCD by engaging with the platform, for example, by generating reviews. There is no notable need to create a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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:
1.4

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 36 pages long and much of the content is focused not on the product, but rather on topics such as the team, an overview of augmented reality, and the platform’s legal framework. The technology plan spans approximately a single page and the level of technical detail is quite low. Most of the technology related discussion is simply a list of product features. The business plan is marginally more detailed, with a section for the market overview and Lucyd’s business strategy.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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:
2.6

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the Lucyd whitepaper is quite vague and spans from February 2018 to Q1 2019. Each milestone contains a single sentence in order to give more detail as to what it entails. Goals already accomplished include the product related patents and team formation. Future developments include the creation of the prototype device and the development of applications (September 2018).

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
2.2

Compliance

It is stated that every six months following the token issue date, there will be a “semi-annual, third party-reviewed report to token holders that will summarize the performance ofLucyd”. It is explicitly stated that LCD tokens should not be considered securities. There is a section of the whitepaper that focuses on discussing the legality of the platform, which is quite long at 6 pages, sufficiently detailed, 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)?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
Compliance Score:
2.4

Company and Team

The 8 team members are listed in the whitepaper along with profile pictures and quite lengthy descriptions of each one’s educational and professional background. The team’s skill set is geared towards business and product development as opposed to technology. It is interesting to note that while most team members have quite lengthy background descriptions, sometimes multiple paragraphs, the background summary provided for the lead blockchain developer is a single sentence. Viewing this individual’s profile in LinkedIn shows that Lucyd is not listed, indicating not only a lack of commitment, but also a lack of competency regarding software/smart contract development for the team overall.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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:
2.4

Token Sale

The total number of LCD tokens is 100 million (50% is for sale, 30% is for the Lucyd team, 10% is for the founding team, and 10% is for partners). The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail. The soft cap is $1.5MM USD and the hard cap is $10MM USD, where 1 LCD = $0.25 USD. The token sale takes place on February 28, 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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
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?

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:
3.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website