Open

Providing the groundwork for monetization and distribution for mainstream software applications to successfully bridge their offerings to the blockchain.

About Open

OPEN is a blockchain payments infrastructure for applications, with a cryptocurrency wallet and payments solution that enables on-chain transactions and access to payment data. The platform allows users (app developers) to easily accept payments in a wide variety of cryptocurrencies for their applications. OPN tokens are used as stake in order to create and operate a ‘scaffold’, which enables communication with the OPEN API.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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

OPEN aims to become the first developer wallet that enables applications (both centralized and decentralized) to manage on-chain transactions. A video demonstration of the Testnet MVP is available via the project’s website. As an example of how the product works, imagine a merchant who wishes to accept different cryptocurrencies for their online store. OPEN allows the merchant to collect payments in different types of cryptocurrencies, using various blockchain structures, via the OPEN API service. It is stated that for reasons of scalability, OPEN will be ported from Ethereum to Tendermint at a later date.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

4.4
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.

Use of Blockchain

The ERC20 compliant OPN tokens are used as stake by application developers to create and operate ‘scaffolds’, which enable communication with the OPEN API, allowing for transactions in different cryptocurrencies. It is stated that “the OPEN Platform’s ability to port its API abstraction layer to other chains provides every developer the opportunity to port their payment schema to a variety of different platforms to capitalize on the different features within chains”. Furthermore, a 3% transaction fee is collected for each scaffold and distributed through the development pool, rewarding developers with OPN, so as to incentivize adoption of the platform. The use of blockchain technology is quite interesting, and if successful, would increase ease of use and adoption of cryptocurrencies as a whole.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is moderate in length at 31 pages. The technology plan is presented quite well – detailed specifics of the platform are discussed without obfuscating the information with technical jargon. Details regarding the token sale are omitted from the whitepaper and only partial information can be found on the OPEN website. Other business-related details could have been discussed in the whitepaper to make the document more thorough, such as a quantitative comparison of the transaction fees associated with using OPEN. Overall, the whitepaper is quite comprehensive in a technical sense, but can contain more detail from a business plan perspective. Relative to most whitepapers that have a simplistic product, the document presented by OPEN takes a significant amount of time to read in order to comprehend how the platform operates.

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?

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

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from October 2017 to April 2019 and contains moderate levels of detail. Milestones sometimes contain descriptions to further discuss what the they entail. Milestones reached thus far include publishing the whitepaper and operating OPEN on Testnet (on and off chain). The draft documentation of the API and the security design of the wallet are planned to be released in March of 2018. There is a section in the whitepaper that discusses third-party dependencies in sufficient detail.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.2
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
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

The whitepaper contains a disclaimer section that is approximately two pages in length. It is explicitly stated that OPN tokens (which essentially grant access to the OPEN API) should not be considered securities. The language is somewhat professional and the level of detail comparable to most ICO whitepapers. It is stated that “no regulatory authority has examined or approved any of the information set out in [the] whitepaper”.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.0
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?

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?

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?

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

Company and Team

The team, comprised of 14 individuals, is listed on the OPEN website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions, and links to LinkedIn profiles. There are more individuals with skills tailored to business than to technology and blockchain development. However, members of the development team have worked with large, well-known projects/organizations in the past (such as Facebook for Blackberry 10 OS and the On-Chain Randomness Library for Solidity).

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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 OPN tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 20% is for the developer growth pool, 20% is for the team, partners and advisors, 0.5% for platform partners, and 0.5% for the community and developer airdrop pool ). The allocation of funds is not discussed. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $30MM USD, where 1 OPEN = $0.08 USD. The private token sale takes place on February 21.

Product

OPEN aims to become the first developer wallet that enables applications (both centralized and decentralized) to manage on-chain transactions. A video demonstration of the Testnet MVP is available via the project’s website. As an example of how the product works, imagine a merchant who wishes to accept different cryptocurrencies for their online store. OPEN allows the merchant to collect payments in different types of cryptocurrencies, using various blockchain structures, via the OPEN API service. It is stated that for reasons of scalability, OPEN will be ported from Ethereum to Tendermint at a later date.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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

The ERC20 compliant OPN tokens are used as stake by application developers to create and operate ‘scaffolds’, which enable communication with the OPEN API, allowing for transactions in different cryptocurrencies. It is stated that “the OPEN Platform’s ability to port its API abstraction layer to other chains provides every developer the opportunity to port their payment schema to a variety of different platforms to capitalize on the different features within chains”. Furthermore, a 3% transaction fee is collected for each scaffold and distributed through the development pool, rewarding developers with OPN, so as to incentivize adoption of the platform. The use of blockchain technology is quite interesting, and if successful, would increase ease of use and adoption of cryptocurrencies as a whole.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
Use of Blockchain Score:
4.4

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is moderate in length at 31 pages. The technology plan is presented quite well – detailed specifics of the platform are discussed without obfuscating the information with technical jargon. Details regarding the token sale are omitted from the whitepaper and only partial information can be found on the OPEN website. Other business-related details could have been discussed in the whitepaper to make the document more thorough, such as a quantitative comparison of the transaction fees associated with using OPEN. Overall, the whitepaper is quite comprehensive in a technical sense, but can contain more detail from a business plan perspective. Relative to most whitepapers that have a simplistic product, the document presented by OPEN takes a significant amount of time to read in order to comprehend how the platform operates.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
3.6

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from October 2017 to April 2019 and contains moderate levels of detail. Milestones sometimes contain descriptions to further discuss what the they entail. Milestones reached thus far include publishing the whitepaper and operating OPEN on Testnet (on and off chain). The draft documentation of the API and the security design of the wallet are planned to be released in March of 2018. There is a section in the whitepaper that discusses third-party dependencies in sufficient detail.

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?

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:
3.2

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a disclaimer section that is approximately two pages in length. It is explicitly stated that OPN tokens (which essentially grant access to the OPEN API) should not be considered securities. The language is somewhat professional and the level of detail comparable to most ICO whitepapers. It is stated that “no regulatory authority has examined or approved any of the information set out in [the] whitepaper”.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
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:
3.2

Company and Team

The team, comprised of 14 individuals, is listed on the OPEN website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions, and links to LinkedIn profiles. There are more individuals with skills tailored to business than to technology and blockchain development. However, members of the development team have worked with large, well-known projects/organizations in the past (such as Facebook for Blackberry 10 OS and the On-Chain Randomness Library for Solidity).

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?

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?

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?

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

Token Sale

The total number of OPN tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 20% is for the developer growth pool, 20% is for the team, partners and advisors, 0.5% for platform partners, and 0.5% for the community and developer airdrop pool ). The allocation of funds is not discussed. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $30MM USD, where 1 OPEN = $0.08 USD. The private token sale takes place on February 21.

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?

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

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website