Basic Rating

  • REMME

  • REMME builds the distributed Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) protocol with a set of DApps to enable passwordless authentication.
  • 3.2

Rating Insights

Remme plans to eliminate annoyances and security risks that are involved with authentication protocols that require the user to input a password or a pin. The team’s plan is the create a distributed Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) protocol, operated using a proof-of-service consensus algorithm on the Ethereum blockchain. Individuals will be able to use the Remme service for free, which will authenticate users more easily and more securly compared to traditional authentication methods. Companies will pay to use the services provided by Remme which provide a better user experience on the organization’s platform.

Category Rating

Click any score to view its breakdown and category insights
3.0
Product

Product

Remme, if successful, will serve as an enterprise level solution as well as a convenient authentication protocol for individuals. Steady progress has been made towards developing the platform. A prototype has been developed and can be seen on the Remme GitHib page. The level of competition that Remme faces is moderate. There are a few organizations in the realm of blockchain-focused security or authentication. Additionally, there are many well-established password management companies that are currently not using decentralized technology, however it is reasonable to assume that those companies are currently looking to implement this kind of technology into their platform that already has widespread adoption. Making strategic partnerships early on will be a critical factor to the success of Remme.

Readiness

Is the product 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.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
3.4
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

REM is an ERC20 compliant utility token that will be used for all internal operations inside the ecosystem. The justification of using a custom blockchain is reasonable and is mainly attributed to Remme incorporating a proof-of-service system in order to provide stable system response (independent of hardware capabilities) while incentivizing users to remain online and maintain the network. By using blockchain technology, Remme may be disruptive to password management organizations, as the service Remme proposes would be easier to use and more secure.

Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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.
3.8
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is primarily focused on the technological logistics of implementing Remme. Technological aspects of the project are discussed in detail without obscuring the literature with jargon. The whitepaper is fairly transparent regarding business and technological aspects of the Remme platform, but neglects to discuss the Remme team. The value proposition of Remme from an enterprise perspective was explained throughly, yet in a manner that is relatively easy to understand considering the technological focus of the 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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

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

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.
3.2
Roadmap

Roadmap

The development roadmap the Remme provides in the whitepaper is mainly focused on technological milestones. Current plans are to implement the legal structure of the ecosystem and expand the team of software engineers. Public testing of the platform will commence in Q3 2018. The entirety of the roadmap spans from the end of 2015 to the end of 2019, and is divided into yearly-quarters. Some milestones are somewhat vague and should be expanded upon. The GitHub account has little activity but it contains portions of the first prototype of the platform.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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.
3.4
Compliance

Compliance

The Remme whitepaper points out the the PKI protocol is already government regulated and that one of the main advantages of the Remme platform and their plans to operate their platform is that “there are no legal limitations and government cooperation issues.” For the token sale, there is a “basic” level of KYC.

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
2.4
Company and Team

Company and Team

The whitepaper does not include the Remme team, however the list of 8 team members can be found on their website. Information presented on the website about the team members is severely lacking. Descriptions of each individuals contribution to the team and professional background is missing. Additionally, there are no links to any of the team members social media profiles. In fact, other than their names, job titles, and profile pictures (and the contact email for 3 of the members), there are no other information available. This is odd considering that the credentials of some of the team members (found through a manual search on LinkedIn) revealed that some team members have considerable experience operating large business, and some that even have experience developing for blockchain-related projects. However, more people with a background in software development will be required for this project as it develops, which is why Remme plans to hire more software engineers in the first quarter of 2018. Remme should revamp the team section of their website and include more information about the team and perhaps include it in the whitepaper.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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.
3.2
Token Sale

Token Sale

The total REM token supply is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 10% is allocated to the reserve fund, 20% for partners and investors, and 20% for the team and founders). The hard cap (including pre-sale) is $20MM USD and the soft cap (which was reached during the pre-sale) is $480K USD. The initial price is 1 REM = $0.04 USD and BTC as well as ETH are acceptable currencies for the public sale which begins on February 13, 2018.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
Token Allocation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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.

Product

Remme, if successful, will serve as an enterprise level solution as well as a convenient authentication protocol for individuals. Steady progress has been made towards developing the platform. A prototype has been developed and can be seen on the Remme GitHib page. The level of competition that Remme faces is moderate. There are a few organizations in the realm of blockchain-focused security or authentication. Additionally, there are many well-established password management companies that are currently not using decentralized technology, however it is reasonable to assume that those companies are currently looking to implement this kind of technology into their platform that already has widespread adoption. Making strategic partnerships early on will be a critical factor to the success of Remme.

Readiness

Is the product 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.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Use of Blockchain

REM is an ERC20 compliant utility token that will be used for all internal operations inside the ecosystem. The justification of using a custom blockchain is reasonable and is mainly attributed to Remme incorporating a proof-of-service system in order to provide stable system response (independent of hardware capabilities) while incentivizing users to remain online and maintain the network. By using blockchain technology, Remme may be disruptive to password management organizations, as the service Remme proposes would be easier to use and more secure.

Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is primarily focused on the technological logistics of implementing Remme. Technological aspects of the project are discussed in detail without obscuring the literature with jargon. The whitepaper is fairly transparent regarding business and technological aspects of the Remme platform, but neglects to discuss the Remme team. The value proposition of Remme from an enterprise perspective was explained throughly, yet in a manner that is relatively easy to understand considering the technological focus of the 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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

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

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.

Roadmap

The development roadmap the Remme provides in the whitepaper is mainly focused on technological milestones. Current plans are to implement the legal structure of the ecosystem and expand the team of software engineers. Public testing of the platform will commence in Q3 2018. The entirety of the roadmap spans from the end of 2015 to the end of 2019, and is divided into yearly-quarters. Some milestones are somewhat vague and should be expanded upon. The GitHub account has little activity but it contains portions of the first prototype of the platform.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Realistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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.

Compliance

The Remme whitepaper points out the the PKI protocol is already government regulated and that one of the main advantages of the Remme platform and their plans to operate their platform is that “there are no legal limitations and government cooperation issues.” For the token sale, there is a “basic” level of KYC.

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Company and Team

The whitepaper does not include the Remme team, however the list of 8 team members can be found on their website. Information presented on the website about the team members is severely lacking. Descriptions of each individuals contribution to the team and professional background is missing. Additionally, there are no links to any of the team members social media profiles. In fact, other than their names, job titles, and profile pictures (and the contact email for 3 of the members), there are no other information available. This is odd considering that the credentials of some of the team members (found through a manual search on LinkedIn) revealed that some team members have considerable experience operating large business, and some that even have experience developing for blockchain-related projects. However, more people with a background in software development will be required for this project as it develops, which is why Remme plans to hire more software engineers in the first quarter of 2018. Remme should revamp the team section of their website and include more information about the team and perhaps include it in the whitepaper.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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.

Token Sale

The total REM token supply is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 10% is allocated to the reserve fund, 20% for partners and investors, and 20% for the team and founders). The hard cap (including pre-sale) is $20MM USD and the soft cap (which was reached during the pre-sale) is $480K USD. The initial price is 1 REM = $0.04 USD and BTC as well as ETH are acceptable currencies for the public sale which begins on February 13, 2018.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
Token Allocation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Most Read Reviews