Orchid Protocol

Orchid is an open-source technology that aims to facilitate an Internet free from surveillance and censorship.

About Orchid Protocol

Orchid is an open-source technology that aims to facilitate an Internet free from surveillance and censorship. The platform uses a network of nodes that are comprised of individuals that contribute extra bandwidth. Medallions are used with the proof-of-work protocol in order to ensure the authenticity of users and OCT tokens are used to make transactions on the Orchid platform. Click here to access Orchid Protocol’s whitepaper.

Company and Team Use of Blockchain

Product

3.8
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.

Product

The Orchid Protocol aims to become a leader in terms of facilitating an open Internet. The Orchid Market is a “distributed P2P network that facilitates the purchase and sale of bandwidth among Relays, Proxies, and Users”. The network structure of the marketplace is said to be similar to a Distributed Hash Table (DHT).  The organization is quite transparent with the technology and outright states that the parts released are merely “system designs and an initial implementation”. At its early current stage of development, the platform is still in private Alpha so the technology audits by external peers are currently not available to the public. The platform will utilize a proof-of-work consensus protocol for the first release, but it is stated that proof-of-space is currently being explored for a future version of the protocol.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

4.2
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally 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.)?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.

Use of Blockchain

The Orchid Protocol is an overlay on top of the existing Internet infrastructure. Users sell their bandwidth for OCT tokens. The aim is for Orchid “to be fully decentralized, fully autonomous, fully anonymous, and is to handle payments”. Medallions are for the proof-of-work protocol to ensure authenticity of users and are used to gain access to the Orchid Market. OCT tokens are used for payments within the Orchid Network. The platform will use a proof-of-work consensus protocol, which utilizes tokens called Medallions. Peddlers are those that exchange bandwidth and act as relays/proxies for the network. With regards to the need to create a custom token (OCT), the document is fully transparent and states that “the decision to introduce a new token instead of simply using Ether is for socioeconomical, not technical, reasons”. However, the proposed socioeconomical effects of creating OCT and only allowing OCT to operate on the network is not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper.

Use of Blockchain Company and Team

Whitepaper

4.0
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?

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.?

5.0
N/A
5 - Candid openness.
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 51 pages in length (pages 28 through 51 contain the appendices). The document begins with a discussion of three problems: the Traffic Analysis Problem, the Sybil (attack) Problem, and the Random Selection Problem.

In short, the problems are as follows:
* Allow for the ability to transmit encrypted data through intermediary parties with complete transparency with regards to the implementation of the protocol.
* Ensure authenticity of each user.
* Efficiently manage a distributed list of authenticated users (relays).

Solutions to these problems already exist and the Orchid Protocol aims to use combine these solutions in order develop the platform.

The majority of the document is fairly technical and gives a logical walkthrough of the different aspects of the Orchid Protocol. There is much content provided that discusses the challenges that the protocol will face and what can be done to address them (security, costs, etc). There is also specific discussion with regards to why proof-of-work was selected for the consensus protocol of the platform as opposed to other methods such as proof-of-stake, proof-of-idle, etc. Scaling of the platform is also specifically addressed. The whitepaper also addresses the current landscape with regards to traditional payment systems and a somewhat generic overview of the impact of blockchain technology is also included. The document is fully transparent and clearly shows that the whitepaper is more of an expression of an idea rather than a developed product/service. As a result, the whitepaper lacks detail with regards to the business plan of the organization: details of the token sale/economics are absent. Overall, the whitepaper is fairly complex and takes time to read and understand, but is written quite well.

Whitepaper Product

Company and Team

4.6
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Skilled and balanced, fully committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

5.0
N/A
5 - Meeting and exceeding 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.

Company and Team

Orchid Labs Inc. was founded in 2017. The company has raised $4.7 million in a SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens) seed round of venture funding from Andreessen HorowitzSequoia CapitalMetaStable CompanyBlockchain Capital,  Richard MuirheadStruck CapitalPolychain CapitalCompoundDFJ GrowthCF and several other undisclosed investors.

There are 6 individuals that are listed as authors of the whitepaper: David L. Salamon, Gustav Simonsson, Brian Vohaska, and Brian J. Fox with Stephen F. Bell, and Steven Waterhouse. Most of these individuals have a technical background: David L. Salamon has a background in machine learning and statistics, Gustav Simonsson was a core developer at Ethereum, Brian J. Fox has experience working as a CTO for a number of organizations (Virtual World Computing, netCelerant, Roaming Messenger, SupplySolution), and Dr. Steve Waterhouse, Ph.D., Engineering from Cambridge University, was the CTO at RPX Corporation and was a board member at Bitstamp. Stephen F. Bell has experience that is more aligned with business development and is concurrently involved with other projects/organizations (BV2 Ventures, Weixing Holding Co.) according to his Linkedin.

 

Product

The Orchid Protocol aims to become a leader in terms of facilitating an open Internet. The Orchid Market is a “distributed P2P network that facilitates the purchase and sale of bandwidth among Relays, Proxies, and Users”. The network structure of the marketplace is said to be similar to a Distributed Hash Table (DHT).  The organization is quite transparent with the technology and outright states that the parts released are merely “system designs and an initial implementation”. At its early current stage of development, the platform is still in private Alpha so the technology audits by external peers are currently not available to the public. The platform will utilize a proof-of-work consensus protocol for the first release, but it is stated that proof-of-space is currently being explored for a future version of the protocol.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
Product Score:
3.8

Use of Blockchain

The Orchid Protocol is an overlay on top of the existing Internet infrastructure. Users sell their bandwidth for OCT tokens. The aim is for Orchid “to be fully decentralized, fully autonomous, fully anonymous, and is to handle payments”. Medallions are for the proof-of-work protocol to ensure authenticity of users and are used to gain access to the Orchid Market. OCT tokens are used for payments within the Orchid Network. The platform will use a proof-of-work consensus protocol, which utilizes tokens called Medallions. Peddlers are those that exchange bandwidth and act as relays/proxies for the network. With regards to the need to create a custom token (OCT), the document is fully transparent and states that “the decision to introduce a new token instead of simply using Ether is for socioeconomical, not technical, reasons”. However, the proposed socioeconomical effects of creating OCT and only allowing OCT to operate on the network is not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper.

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally 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.)?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Use of Blockchain Score:
4.2

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 51 pages in length (pages 28 through 51 contain the appendices). The document begins with a discussion of three problems: the Traffic Analysis Problem, the Sybil (attack) Problem, and the Random Selection Problem.

In short, the problems are as follows:
* Allow for the ability to transmit encrypted data through intermediary parties with complete transparency with regards to the implementation of the protocol.
* Ensure authenticity of each user.
* Efficiently manage a distributed list of authenticated users (relays).

Solutions to these problems already exist and the Orchid Protocol aims to use combine these solutions in order develop the platform.

The majority of the document is fairly technical and gives a logical walkthrough of the different aspects of the Orchid Protocol. There is much content provided that discusses the challenges that the protocol will face and what can be done to address them (security, costs, etc). There is also specific discussion with regards to why proof-of-work was selected for the consensus protocol of the platform as opposed to other methods such as proof-of-stake, proof-of-idle, etc. Scaling of the platform is also specifically addressed. The whitepaper also addresses the current landscape with regards to traditional payment systems and a somewhat generic overview of the impact of blockchain technology is also included. The document is fully transparent and clearly shows that the whitepaper is more of an expression of an idea rather than a developed product/service. As a result, the whitepaper lacks detail with regards to the business plan of the organization: details of the token sale/economics are absent. Overall, the whitepaper is fairly complex and takes time to read and understand, but is written quite well.

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?

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.?

5.0
N/A
5 - Candid openness.
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:
4.0

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

N.0
N/A
N/A
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

N.0
N/A
N/A
Current Position

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

N.0
N/A
N/A
Roadmap Score:
0.0

Compliance

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

N.0
N/A
N/A
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?

N.0
N/A
N/A
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?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

N.0
N/A
N/A
Compliance Score:
0.0

Company and Team

Orchid Labs Inc. was founded in 2017. The company has raised $4.7 million in a SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens) seed round of venture funding from Andreessen HorowitzSequoia CapitalMetaStable CompanyBlockchain Capital,  Richard MuirheadStruck CapitalPolychain CapitalCompoundDFJ GrowthCF and several other undisclosed investors.

There are 6 individuals that are listed as authors of the whitepaper: David L. Salamon, Gustav Simonsson, Brian Vohaska, and Brian J. Fox with Stephen F. Bell, and Steven Waterhouse. Most of these individuals have a technical background: David L. Salamon has a background in machine learning and statistics, Gustav Simonsson was a core developer at Ethereum, Brian J. Fox has experience working as a CTO for a number of organizations (Virtual World Computing, netCelerant, Roaming Messenger, SupplySolution), and Dr. Steve Waterhouse, Ph.D., Engineering from Cambridge University, was the CTO at RPX Corporation and was a board member at Bitstamp. Stephen F. Bell has experience that is more aligned with business development and is concurrently involved with other projects/organizations (BV2 Ventures, Weixing Holding Co.) according to his Linkedin.

 

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Skilled and balanced, fully committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

5.0
N/A
5 - Meeting and exceeding 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
4.6

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)?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Raise Amount Min

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

N.0
N/A
N/A
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

N.0
N/A
N/A
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?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token Sale Score:
0.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website