Lympo

Monetizing sports and health data via blockchain

About Lympo

Aiming to tokenize the health and fitness industry, the goal of Lympo is to create a blockchain ecosystem and economy for the creation, tracking, storage, and sale of health and fitness data. The planned ecosystem is for the use of health fitness trainers, sports coaches, health and fitness app developers, health insurers, sports and wellness businesses, gyms, health and fitness startups, and investors. The ecosystem would allow one to harness, control, and sell personal health data in a P2P fashion, eliminating third-party control of personal health data and lack of compensation for the re-sale of such data. The three “pillars” of Lympo: user rewards, fitness data marketplace, and a crowd funding platform.Competitors: Fitchain (Built by KPMG Austrailia w/ IBM on IBM-Cloud), Bravelog (Built w/ Microsoft on Azure), Fittoken, and Nokia (in trial development for Health blockchain).
Uniqueness/Advantages to competition: Aims to not just reward user and record data but to create a marketplace as well as a crowdfunding platform.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much 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 product is far from ready, there is NO GitHub repo and the main focus of the team at the current status is to write a smart contract for an ICO. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and a public beta will not be released for several months. The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the health and fitness industry has grown to be an almost $100 billion industry, and continues to grow along with technological advances. There is also an appeal for the control and tokenization of one’s data, be it health or otherwise, as most applications take user data and resell it to third-parties without compensation. Although there is a claim that a MVP has been produced, no actual evidence of the MVP is given and there is no github repo. Large competition presence emerging. Competitors: Fitchain (Built by KPMG Austrailia w/ IBM on IBM-Cloud), Bravelog (Built w/ Microsoft on Azure), Fittoken, and Nokia (in trial development for Health blockchain).

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?

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?

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 product does not have much to add to blockchain development but it does create a potentially developing and novel ecosystem to be run on the Ethereum blockchain. There is some disruptive advantage as it would in theory would allow one to harness, control, and monetize/tokenize personal health data. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is built on top of the Ethereum network and creates a marketplace/economy within its own network, which would require it’s own token, however it would be theoretically possible to peform this with only ETH. The system is mostly centralized but will create a decentralized marketplace wherein anyone within the health and fitness industry may interact, create and sell health and fitness data in a P2P fashion. This is a contribution to the blockchain ecosystem but only in a small sense. They are not developing a new blockchain with new tech and different tech and there has been progress on this idea for years by other, some very large corporations.

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?

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.?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is very visually pleasing, with an overall history of health fitness data provided, as well as a business plan and potential technology presentation. However, there is lack of transparency of how much work has actually already been completed and how much more truly has to be done. Also, great lack of transparency with regard to the fact that the competitive landscape is filled with competing solutions, some by very large corporations (see Product). There is also a complete lack of legal transparency or presence in any form in the whitepaper.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
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?

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

Dev. Roadmap is outlined on a month-to-month to quarterly basis but is vague overall with one-line goal statements on milestones. The overall vision is set, however it is a very long timeline for the project with no real use for the LYM-token besides being a tradeable cryptocurrency for at least two quarters/6-months. The platform is still under basic development and the project will not be fully developed until after the ICO. It will take about 3-months after the ICO before a beta wallet platform may be released for public use, another 3-months for platform use beta, one year before partnerships with employers are explored,15-months for third-party APIs, 18-months for exploration of research institutions for fitness data, and almost 2 years for full-project release of the two-sided marketplace for sale of one’s health-date via LYM-token. NO GITHUB REPO PRESENT. Main focus is to develop a smart contract merely for an ICO and no example UI or wallet has been created or displayed. A lot of work and time for the project yet to be completed. Scored a 4 on ‘Dependencies’ since LYM-token will be built upon Ethereum network and since Lympo is an established company with +500 fitness professionals who will need ot use the LYM-tokens to continue working with Lympo.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.2
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

There is a small ‘terms and conditions’ button on the front page that you must independently click to review. There are NO explicit legal reviews or agreements on display page or whitepaper. The ICO has a very high probability of being a security in countries requiring security registration and no attention has been given to KYC/AML laws. The infrastructure is to also to be developed after ICO which does not help in avoidance of being a security and such that the only function of the LYM-token for at least half a year would be as a tradeable financial instrument, with no other functionality beyond speculative trading within secondary trading markets. ICO most likely fails Howey Test and would not be allowed for US citizen participation.
A blanket arbitration clause of “This Agreement is a subject to and governed by the Republic of Estonia. Any disagreements or disputes of the User and the Company, arising from this Agreement, shall be settled by negotiations between the parties. In case the agreement is not reached within 30 (thirty) days, it shall be settled by the competent court of the Republic of Estonia. The Company reserves the right to change the jurisdiction of the Company and this Agreement at any time at its own discretion.” It is very interesting to think such an arbitration clause would avoid “long-arm” laws from other nations, most assuredly it would NOT avoid “long-arm” laws, especially SEC jurisdiction in the USA or other jurisidictions such as Singapore, etc. Terms and conditions of token sale aim to absolve Lympo of any and all liabilities arising from the sale (with a self-prescribed arbitration location and jurisidiction), and do not allow for buyer ability to negotiate or arrange arbitration at their own discretion. Such a contract of sale is considered a contract of adhesion in the USA and as such is considered automatically null and void.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.6
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?

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?

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

Company and Team

An established team with backgrounds in crypto-currency, blockchain, smart contracts, software development, software engineering, UI/UX, business development, marketing, graphics design, and healthcare. All members have verifiable LinkedIn profiles with credentials. Founded in December 2016. 11 Employees. 11 Advisors and an “alliance” with 3 health and fitness coaches. All employees and advisors are committed to at least one or more full-time positions outside the Lympo project. Positives: The core team and team heads have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, smart contract projects. Negatives: Every member is dedicated to projects outside Lympo, some are even committed to two or three other projects.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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

Product

The product is far from ready, there is NO GitHub repo and the main focus of the team at the current status is to write a smart contract for an ICO. The heart of the project will not be developed until after the ICO and a public beta will not be released for several months. The product has appeal and a decent target user base given the health and fitness industry has grown to be an almost $100 billion industry, and continues to grow along with technological advances. There is also an appeal for the control and tokenization of one’s data, be it health or otherwise, as most applications take user data and resell it to third-parties without compensation. Although there is a claim that a MVP has been produced, no actual evidence of the MVP is given and there is no github repo. Large competition presence emerging. Competitors: Fitchain (Built by KPMG Austrailia w/ IBM on IBM-Cloud), Bravelog (Built w/ Microsoft on Azure), Fittoken, and Nokia (in trial development for Health blockchain).

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much 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 product does not have much to add to blockchain development but it does create a potentially developing and novel ecosystem to be run on the Ethereum blockchain. There is some disruptive advantage as it would in theory would allow one to harness, control, and monetize/tokenize personal health data. There is some need for a custom token as the platform is built on top of the Ethereum network and creates a marketplace/economy within its own network, which would require it’s own token, however it would be theoretically possible to peform this with only ETH. The system is mostly centralized but will create a decentralized marketplace wherein anyone within the health and fitness industry may interact, create and sell health and fitness data in a P2P fashion. This is a contribution to the blockchain ecosystem but only in a small sense. They are not developing a new blockchain with new tech and different tech and there has been progress on this idea for years by other, some very large corporations.

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?

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 visually pleasing, with an overall history of health fitness data provided, as well as a business plan and potential technology presentation. However, there is lack of transparency of how much work has actually already been completed and how much more truly has to be done. Also, great lack of transparency with regard to the fact that the competitive landscape is filled with competing solutions, some by very large corporations (see Product). There is also a complete lack of legal transparency or presence in any form in the whitepaper.

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?

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.?

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?

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

Roadmap

Dev. Roadmap is outlined on a month-to-month to quarterly basis but is vague overall with one-line goal statements on milestones. The overall vision is set, however it is a very long timeline for the project with no real use for the LYM-token besides being a tradeable cryptocurrency for at least two quarters/6-months. The platform is still under basic development and the project will not be fully developed until after the ICO. It will take about 3-months after the ICO before a beta wallet platform may be released for public use, another 3-months for platform use beta, one year before partnerships with employers are explored,15-months for third-party APIs, 18-months for exploration of research institutions for fitness data, and almost 2 years for full-project release of the two-sided marketplace for sale of one’s health-date via LYM-token. NO GITHUB REPO PRESENT. Main focus is to develop a smart contract merely for an ICO and no example UI or wallet has been created or displayed. A lot of work and time for the project yet to be completed. Scored a 4 on ‘Dependencies’ since LYM-token will be built upon Ethereum network and since Lympo is an established company with +500 fitness professionals who will need ot use the LYM-tokens to continue working with Lympo.

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?

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:
2.8

Compliance

There is a small ‘terms and conditions’ button on the front page that you must independently click to review. There are NO explicit legal reviews or agreements on display page or whitepaper. The ICO has a very high probability of being a security in countries requiring security registration and no attention has been given to KYC/AML laws. The infrastructure is to also to be developed after ICO which does not help in avoidance of being a security and such that the only function of the LYM-token for at least half a year would be as a tradeable financial instrument, with no other functionality beyond speculative trading within secondary trading markets. ICO most likely fails Howey Test and would not be allowed for US citizen participation.
A blanket arbitration clause of “This Agreement is a subject to and governed by the Republic of Estonia. Any disagreements or disputes of the User and the Company, arising from this Agreement, shall be settled by negotiations between the parties. In case the agreement is not reached within 30 (thirty) days, it shall be settled by the competent court of the Republic of Estonia. The Company reserves the right to change the jurisdiction of the Company and this Agreement at any time at its own discretion.” It is very interesting to think such an arbitration clause would avoid “long-arm” laws from other nations, most assuredly it would NOT avoid “long-arm” laws, especially SEC jurisdiction in the USA or other jurisidictions such as Singapore, etc. Terms and conditions of token sale aim to absolve Lympo of any and all liabilities arising from the sale (with a self-prescribed arbitration location and jurisidiction), and do not allow for buyer ability to negotiate or arrange arbitration at their own discretion. Such a contract of sale is considered a contract of adhesion in the USA and as such is considered automatically null and void.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
1.2

Company and Team

An established team with backgrounds in crypto-currency, blockchain, smart contracts, software development, software engineering, UI/UX, business development, marketing, graphics design, and healthcare. All members have verifiable LinkedIn profiles with credentials. Founded in December 2016. 11 Employees. 11 Advisors and an “alliance” with 3 health and fitness coaches. All employees and advisors are committed to at least one or more full-time positions outside the Lympo project. Positives: The core team and team heads have previous experience with blockchain, cryptocurrency, smart contract projects. Negatives: Every member is dedicated to projects outside Lympo, some are even committed to two or three other projects.

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
3.6

Token Sale

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?

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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:
2.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website