PolySwarm

PolySwarm is the first decentralized marketplace where security experts build anti-malware engines that compete to protect you.

About PolySwarm

PolySwarm plans to change anti-malware services by using a network of anti-malware professionals that work towards keeping users safe from cyber threats. It allows security specialists, especially those with specialized knowledge, to be able to contribute to a crowd-sourced cyber security platform while receiving compensation for their efforts and knowledge.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

The service will compete with paid anti-malware services that currently use a lump-sum or a subscription-based model. The proposed advantage of PolySwarm is that it will allow for a variety of specialized anti-malware services to be marketable to a wide user-base, where in the past, programs that specialize in a particular area would not be desirable or cost-effective for the average consumer or enterprise client. PolySwarm claims that multiple anti-malware packages will be able to be used together for combinatorial coverage. Crowd-sourcing anti-malware solutions has yet to be done successfully on a large scale but if PolySwarm is successful, the platform will serve enterprise, individual users, and also security experts.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.6
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?

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?

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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

Nectar (NCT) follow the ERC20 token protocol and will power all major operations within the PolySwarm ecosystem. PolySwarm states that the need to create a custom token was to isolate PolySwarm from market volatility and claims that this is can be accomplished due to the fact that NCT is a utility-specific token, thus the exchange of NCT and threat intelligence will be independent of external market forces.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.8
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?

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 PolySwarm whitepaper focuses on discussing how the platform will operate logistically, including how governance will take place. Some low-level technical details are included, but since the primary focus of the platform is to connect users to security experts, a significantly high degree of technical sophistication in the whitepaper is not expected.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

PolySwarm has omitted dates from the roadmap in the whitepaper; dates are present on their website, but it is stated that they are subject to change. PolySwarm plans to release a minimum viable product by April 30, 2018. The first version of the operational PolySwarm platform is planned to launch in Q4 2018 and a stable release is planned for Q2 2019. Overall, the roadmap is generous with the time-frame of major milestones.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

The token sale will employ KYC controls and the sale will not be permitted in a number of locations, including the United States. Registering for the token sale requires the user to accept a privacy policy, terms of use, token sale terms, all of which contain professionally written documentation.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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?

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

Company and Team

Information regarding the PolySwarm team (9 people) is not included in the whitepaper but can be found on their website, where profile pictures, job titles, descriptions, and links to social media profiles can be found. The credentials, especially of the team developers, seem well-suited for the project. However, further investigations into the GitHub accounts of most of the members show that there is relatively low activity compared to most.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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

The total number of NCT tokens is not set and will be determined during the token sale. There is some ambiguity with regard to the allocation, as the phrasing is not clear. It is stated that 70% of the tokens will be sold during the token sale and 15% of the remaining 30% (i.e 4.5% of the total token supply) will be airdropped. Then PolySwarm states that the final 15% of the tokens will be used to accelerate adoption of the platform. However, the remaining percentage of total tokens left is 25.5%, not 15% (100-70-4.5=25.5). Whether this was a mistake or intentionally misleading the reader is undetermined. The hardcap is $50MM USD and the softcap is $5MM USD, where 1 ETH = 31,337 NCT. The token sale will take place on February 6, 2018.

Product

The service will compete with paid anti-malware services that currently use a lump-sum or a subscription-based model. The proposed advantage of PolySwarm is that it will allow for a variety of specialized anti-malware services to be marketable to a wide user-base, where in the past, programs that specialize in a particular area would not be desirable or cost-effective for the average consumer or enterprise client. PolySwarm claims that multiple anti-malware packages will be able to be used together for combinatorial coverage. Crowd-sourcing anti-malware solutions has yet to be done successfully on a large scale but if PolySwarm is successful, the platform will serve enterprise, individual users, and also security experts.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.2

Use of Blockchain

Nectar (NCT) follow the ERC20 token protocol and will power all major operations within the PolySwarm ecosystem. PolySwarm states that the need to create a custom token was to isolate PolySwarm from market volatility and claims that this is can be accomplished due to the fact that NCT is a utility-specific token, thus the exchange of NCT and threat intelligence will be independent of external market forces.

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?

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?

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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:
2.6

Whitepaper

The PolySwarm whitepaper focuses on discussing how the platform will operate logistically, including how governance will take place. Some low-level technical details are included, but since the primary focus of the platform is to connect users to security experts, a significantly high degree of technical sophistication in the whitepaper is not expected.

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?

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:
2.8

Roadmap

PolySwarm has omitted dates from the roadmap in the whitepaper; dates are present on their website, but it is stated that they are subject to change. PolySwarm plans to release a minimum viable product by April 30, 2018. The first version of the operational PolySwarm platform is planned to launch in Q4 2018 and a stable release is planned for Q2 2019. Overall, the roadmap is generous with the time-frame of major milestones.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
2.2

Compliance

The token sale will employ KYC controls and the sale will not be permitted in a number of locations, including the United States. Registering for the token sale requires the user to accept a privacy policy, terms of use, token sale terms, all of which contain professionally written documentation.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
3.2

Company and Team

Information regarding the PolySwarm team (9 people) is not included in the whitepaper but can be found on their website, where profile pictures, job titles, descriptions, and links to social media profiles can be found. The credentials, especially of the team developers, seem well-suited for the project. However, further investigations into the GitHub accounts of most of the members show that there is relatively low activity compared to most.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
3.0

Token Sale

The total number of NCT tokens is not set and will be determined during the token sale. There is some ambiguity with regard to the allocation, as the phrasing is not clear. It is stated that 70% of the tokens will be sold during the token sale and 15% of the remaining 30% (i.e 4.5% of the total token supply) will be airdropped. Then PolySwarm states that the final 15% of the tokens will be used to accelerate adoption of the platform. However, the remaining percentage of total tokens left is 25.5%, not 15% (100-70-4.5=25.5). Whether this was a mistake or intentionally misleading the reader is undetermined. The hardcap is $50MM USD and the softcap is $5MM USD, where 1 ETH = 31,337 NCT. The token sale will take place on February 6, 2018.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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:
1.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website