Naviaddress

Naviaddress is the first global digital addressing system being deployed onto the blockchain.

About Naviaddress

Naviaddress is a global address system that aims to allow physical addresses (of actual locations) to be language-neutral by using only numbers to denote them. Naviaddress will also provide the opportunity for those in less developed countries to have access to an address that can be easily communicated worldwide.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

4.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.

Product

Naviaddress released its first application in 2016 along with its integration with UBER. As of January 2018, there are “1.5 million naviaddresses in the system, including 1.3 million business naviaddresses”. Overall, there is some appeal to the product, as it would greatly assist with the trend of globalization prevalent among blockchain-related projects. The GitHub page shows very low levels of content and activity.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.8
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?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

NVT is an ERC20 compliant token that gives users access to modify and update the metadata of naviaddresses. NVT tokens are also used to for acquiring rights to naviaddresses. The whitepaper also states that “NVTs could also be used to promote the System by awarding NVTs to Users for certain actions within the Naviaddress Platform: registration, invitation of others, creation of popular custom naviaddresses and other activities”. Overall the need for a custom token is questionable and is primarily a means to generate funding and promote the platform. The incentive of owning NVT tokens should be discussed in greater detail.

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?

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?

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 fairly long at 59 pages. The technology plan is presented at a moderately low level of detail, and technological aspects of the platform are presented mainly at a layman level. The business plan is presented in fair detail and discusses the benefits of the platform compared to the traditional addressing system. Overall, the document is easy to read, well organized, and visually appealing.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2015 to Q4 2018 and contains moderately low levels of detail. Milestones are grouped by quarterly years, and for each quarter, there is only one milestone (with the exception of years 2015 and 2016, where patent filings, MVP development, and integration with UBER were completed). It is stated that integration of the blockchain protocol within the existing application will take place in Q2 of 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.4
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional and top-tier.

Compliance

The document that outlines the terms of the token sale is exceedingly comprehensive. Legal concerns and compliance issues are discussed in high detail. Risks and legal disclaimers are also included in the whitepaper. It is explicitly stated in the tokens should not be considered securities. Residents from the US and China are not permitted to participating in the token sale, which will follow KYC procedures.

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?

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?

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?

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 team of 8 individuals are listed on the Naviaddress website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles (for most team members). Particular team members, such as Dmitri Khmelidze were not found on LinkedIn. The skill set of the team is focused towards skills related to business as opposed to technology. However, the blockchain architect on the team has prior experience with developing blockchain products such as EFiR (Interfax). Thus far, Naviaddress has achieved $500K in angel investments and $2MM in seed investments.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.0
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?

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

Details regarding the token sale can be found on the Naviaddress website. The total number of NVT tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 20% is reserved for developers and partners, 20% is reserved by the company, and 10% is reserved for the team). The allocation of funds is described in fair detail. The soft and hard caps are not specified in the whitepaper or on the Naviaddress website. The token sale takes place on March 1, 2018, where 1 NVT = $0.05 USD.

Product

Naviaddress released its first application in 2016 along with its integration with UBER. As of January 2018, there are “1.5 million naviaddresses in the system, including 1.3 million business naviaddresses”. Overall, there is some appeal to the product, as it would greatly assist with the trend of globalization prevalent among blockchain-related projects. The GitHub page shows very low levels of content and activity.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
Product Score:
4.0

Use of Blockchain

NVT is an ERC20 compliant token that gives users access to modify and update the metadata of naviaddresses. NVT tokens are also used to for acquiring rights to naviaddresses. The whitepaper also states that “NVTs could also be used to promote the System by awarding NVTs to Users for certain actions within the Naviaddress Platform: registration, invitation of others, creation of popular custom naviaddresses and other activities”. Overall the need for a custom token is questionable and is primarily a means to generate funding and promote the platform. The incentive of owning NVT tokens should be discussed in greater detail.

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?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is fairly long at 59 pages. The technology plan is presented at a moderately low level of detail, and technological aspects of the platform are presented mainly at a layman level. The business plan is presented in fair detail and discusses the benefits of the platform compared to the traditional addressing system. Overall, the document is easy to read, well organized, and visually appealing.

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?

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?

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:
3.0

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2015 to Q4 2018 and contains moderately low levels of detail. Milestones are grouped by quarterly years, and for each quarter, there is only one milestone (with the exception of years 2015 and 2016, where patent filings, MVP development, and integration with UBER were completed). It is stated that integration of the blockchain protocol within the existing application will take place in Q2 of 2018.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
3.2

Compliance

The document that outlines the terms of the token sale is exceedingly comprehensive. Legal concerns and compliance issues are discussed in high detail. Risks and legal disclaimers are also included in the whitepaper. It is explicitly stated in the tokens should not be considered securities. Residents from the US and China are not permitted to participating in the token sale, which will follow KYC procedures.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional and top-tier.
Compliance Score:
3.4

Company and Team

The team of 8 individuals are listed on the Naviaddress website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles (for most team members). Particular team members, such as Dmitri Khmelidze were not found on LinkedIn. The skill set of the team is focused towards skills related to business as opposed to technology. However, the blockchain architect on the team has prior experience with developing blockchain products such as EFiR (Interfax). Thus far, Naviaddress has achieved $500K in angel investments and $2MM in seed investments.

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?

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?

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?

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:
2.8

Token Sale

Details regarding the token sale can be found on the Naviaddress website. The total number of NVT tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 20% is reserved for developers and partners, 20% is reserved by the company, and 10% is reserved for the team). The allocation of funds is described in fair detail. The soft and hard caps are not specified in the whitepaper or on the Naviaddress website. The token sale takes place on March 1, 2018, where 1 NVT = $0.05 USD.

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?

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:
2.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website