Safinus

A platform, where new entrants to the crypto market can join profitable crypto-currency portfolios of experienced investors in just a few clicks with mutual benefits for both sides

About Safinus

Safinus is a platform that provides casual users with a simple way to invest in cryptocurrencies and ICOs. The platform will allow for portfolio joining and will have a portfolio rating system that will be fully transparent and verified using blockchain technology. SAF tokens will be used for fees and commissions on the Safinus platform, which includes a decentralized exchange and integration with other exchanges.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.0
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

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

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

Product

There is a considerably high degree of competition in terms of blockchain-related projects that aim to simplify the process of investing in ICOs. The features outlined on the Safinus website are not particularly innovative and quite ambitious considering the low level of team members with a technical background. Some aspects of the product are presented only vaguely: for example, it is stated that the platform will use a voting mechanism in order to determine whether an ICO should be added to their platform, however, the specific details of this voting mechanism are not discussed on a technical level. Thus, as information regarding the platform is quite lacking, it is unclear whether Safinus will be able to adequately compete with its competitors.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.0
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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

SAF is an ERC20 compliant token used for payment on the platform. In order to create a portfolio, a user must possess a minimum number (200) of SAF tokens. Hence, there is no significant need to create a custom token, and the utility of the tokens is seemingly contrived. Utilization of blockchain technology extends beyond the token and it is stated that the portfolio rating/tracking system will operate using blockchain technology to ensure transparency for investors.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.4
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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.?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is presented as a webpage on the Safinus website and is quite short. The technology plan is presented in significantly low levels of detail and the information provided by Safinus is primarily focused on the logistical aspects of the platform operation and business developments. An assessment of how Safinus’ platform compares to existing solutions is also provided. Overall the whitepaper lacks detail, but is well organized and is visually pleasing.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
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.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

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

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from May 2017 to November 2019 and contains moderate levels of detail, with 13 milestones that are primarily business-focused. Technological-based milestones are a high-level overview of what the achievement entails. For example, “integration of traditional stock market instruments into the platform” and “creation of a fully decentralized cryptocurrency” are planned to take place in November 2019. Milestones reached thus far include platform documentation, market research and the document generation.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.2
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Compliance

The Safinus website contains a terms and conditions section. Here, it is explicitly stated that SAF tokens are not to be considered securities. It is stated that “Safinus has not registered SAF tokens or the Token Sale, with any regulator in any jurisdiction”. The nature of the platform requires considerably high attention to detail with regard to legal considerations and regulations. However, this is not provided by Safinus based on the information presented on their website.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.0
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

The team of 7 individuals is presented on the Safinus website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. The skill set of the team is heavily skewed towards business as opposed to technology. It seems that only one team member, the CTO, is responsible for the technical development of the platform. Considering the level of development that is necessary for the milestones that Safinus describes, it is unlikely that the organization will achieve their technical-based milestones in a reasonable manner without expanding their development team. The CFO’s LinkedIn profile is not provided on the website, but can be found through a manual search; this profile is in Russian, shows low levels of activity (11 connections), and does not list Safinus as an ongoing commitment.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.4
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

The total number of SAF tokens is unspecified (92% will be sold during the ICO, 5% is for marketing and PR, and 3% is for the bounty campaign). The allocation of funds is described in moderately low detail (40% for platform development, 30% for international marketing, 20% for the liquidity fund, and 10% for legal expenses). It is not clear what allocation of funds is for the team. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $16MM USD, where 1 SAF = $1 USD. The token sale takes place from May 2, 2018 to June 2 2017.

Product

There is a considerably high degree of competition in terms of blockchain-related projects that aim to simplify the process of investing in ICOs. The features outlined on the Safinus website are not particularly innovative and quite ambitious considering the low level of team members with a technical background. Some aspects of the product are presented only vaguely: for example, it is stated that the platform will use a voting mechanism in order to determine whether an ICO should be added to their platform, however, the specific details of this voting mechanism are not discussed on a technical level. Thus, as information regarding the platform is quite lacking, it is unclear whether Safinus will be able to adequately compete with its competitors.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

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

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

Use of Blockchain

SAF is an ERC20 compliant token used for payment on the platform. In order to create a portfolio, a user must possess a minimum number (200) of SAF tokens. Hence, there is no significant need to create a custom token, and the utility of the tokens is seemingly contrived. Utilization of blockchain technology extends beyond the token and it is stated that the portfolio rating/tracking system will operate using blockchain technology to ensure transparency for investors.

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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.0

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is presented as a webpage on the Safinus website and is quite short. The technology plan is presented in significantly low levels of detail and the information provided by Safinus is primarily focused on the logistical aspects of the platform operation and business developments. An assessment of how Safinus’ platform compares to existing solutions is also provided. Overall the whitepaper lacks detail, but is well organized and is visually pleasing.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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.?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
2.4

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from May 2017 to November 2019 and contains moderate levels of detail, with 13 milestones that are primarily business-focused. Technological-based milestones are a high-level overview of what the achievement entails. For example, “integration of traditional stock market instruments into the platform” and “creation of a fully decentralized cryptocurrency” are planned to take place in November 2019. Milestones reached thus far include platform documentation, market research and the document generation.

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.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

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 Safinus website contains a terms and conditions section. Here, it is explicitly stated that SAF tokens are not to be considered securities. It is stated that “Safinus has not registered SAF tokens or the Token Sale, with any regulator in any jurisdiction”. The nature of the platform requires considerably high attention to detail with regard to legal considerations and regulations. However, this is not provided by Safinus based on the information presented on their website.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
2.2

Company and Team

The team of 7 individuals is presented on the Safinus website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. The skill set of the team is heavily skewed towards business as opposed to technology. It seems that only one team member, the CTO, is responsible for the technical development of the platform. Considering the level of development that is necessary for the milestones that Safinus describes, it is unlikely that the organization will achieve their technical-based milestones in a reasonable manner without expanding their development team. The CFO’s LinkedIn profile is not provided on the website, but can be found through a manual search; this profile is in Russian, shows low levels of activity (11 connections), and does not list Safinus as an ongoing commitment.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.0

Token Sale

The total number of SAF tokens is unspecified (92% will be sold during the ICO, 5% is for marketing and PR, and 3% is for the bounty campaign). The allocation of funds is described in moderately low detail (40% for platform development, 30% for international marketing, 20% for the liquidity fund, and 10% for legal expenses). It is not clear what allocation of funds is for the team. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $16MM USD, where 1 SAF = $1 USD. The token sale takes place from May 2, 2018 to June 2 2017.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.4

Use this code to share the ratings on your website