
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.
Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?
How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?
Is it mass market or niche?
Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?
How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?
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.
Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?
How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?
Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?
How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?
How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?
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.
Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?
Is it easy enough to understand?
Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?
Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?
Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?
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.
Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?
Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?
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?
Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?
Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?
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 Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, MetaStable Company, Blockchain Capital,  Richard Muirhead, Struck Capital, Polychain Capital, Compound, DFJ Growth, CF 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.
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.
Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?
3.0How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?
4.0Is it mass market or niche?
4.0Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?
3.0How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?
5.0
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.
Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?
5.0How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?
5.0Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?
2.0How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?
5.0How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?
4.0
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.
Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?
4.0Is it easy enough to understand?
4.0Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?
5.0Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?
3.0Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?
4.0
Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?
N.0Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?
N.0Is there a larger, long-term vision?
N.0How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?
N.0Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?
N.0
How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?
N.0How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?
N.0Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?
N.0How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?
N.0What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?
N.0
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 Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, MetaStable Company, Blockchain Capital,  Richard Muirhead, Struck Capital, Polychain Capital, Compound, DFJ Growth, CF 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.
Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?
4.0Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?
5.0Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?
5.0Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?
5.0Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?
4.0
Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?
N.0Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?
N.0Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?
N.0Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?
N.0Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?
N.0