Saifu

Saifu makes using cryptocurrencies together with regular currencies easy, secure and regulated for a wide audience of non-tech savvy people and businesses.

About Saifu

Saifu is a platform that aims to provide an easy to use banking service for cryptocurrencies. Some key services include wire transfers, exchange services, IBAN and business accounts, as well as secure storage. It is stated that the features provided by Saifu will be audited by a regulated third party service. SFU tokens will be used for all transaction fees on the Saifu platform, of which 70% will be burned.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.8
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

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

Product

The level of competition with projects that aim to provide easy-to-use, cryptocurrency-related financial services is quite high. There is a brief section in the whitepaper discussing Saifu’s thoughts on their competition, and it is mentioned that that the organization welcomes competitors and that they “see room for 8–10 organizations”, but also that “none of [their] competitors currently offer the full package that Saifu offers”. A fairly thorough comparison between Saifu and four competitors (Monaco, Bankera, Revolut, and Crypterium) is provided, along parameters of licensing, security, user interface, card issuance, and crypto trading. Saifu intends to focus on licensing and security and believes Revolut to be its strongest competitor, but criticizes Revolut’s approach to security by stating that multi-signature cold-storage wallets are susceptible to hacks. However, further discussion regarding this statement is not provided in the whitepaper. With regard to Saifu’s approach to security, the platform will store access keys within a proprietary security system (Thales Hardware Security Module). Specific details regarding this module are not provided in the document and there is a lack of thorough comparison to other decentralized security solutions. It is stated that the product is currently in closed beta testing. There is a video demonstration of the desktop application available on the Saifu YouTube page. A public GitHub page is not provided.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.4
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?

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?

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
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

SFU is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to pay for all transaction fees in the Saifu ecosystem. Transaction fees are payed with SFU tokens. SFU tokens are also used for the loyalty program, where users will be rewarded with for holding or using SFU tokens. The blockchain technology utilized by the platform is not innovative, as it is primarily used for the creation/exchange of tokens.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.0
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?

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 40 pages in length. The technology plan is presented with low levels of detail. Information regarding platform security consists primarily of a list of features as opposed to an in-depth technical discussion of the security features and how they compare with existing solutions. The business plan is presented in moderate detail (approximately 2 pages) and discusses sales channels, cash flow estimates, as well as user acquisition estimates. Overall, the whitepaper is visually appealing and is moderately comprehensive.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasibility

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from April 2016 to 2019 (and beyond) and contains moderate levels of detail. There are 13 major milestones, 7 of which have been or will be completed by the second half of 2018, and more milestones are presented in the following section of the document. Mobile payments, IBAN personal accounts, and principal licenses for Visa and Mastercard are planned for the second half 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.8
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a brief disclaimer section at the beginning of the document as well as a paragraph at the end of the document which discusses legal considerations. It is explicitly stated that SFU tokens are not to be considered securities. It is expected that more legal documentation would be included, considering the the platform’s emphasis on compliance and license acquisition – Saifu emphasizes that it is fully regulated as a financial institution, and claims to adhere to strict KYC/AML procedures, as well as have an in-depth risk management strategy. Standard ‘Terms of Service’, ‘Token Sale Terms’, and ‘Privacy Policy’ documents are also provided on the website.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.8
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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

It is stated that Saifu is a licensed financial institution, holding a license from the Czech National Bank (as of May 2017), and that the platform’s security measures are reviewed by independent regulators, while its business operations are audited by Deloitte.
11 individuals are listed on the Saifu website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to LinkedIn profiles. It is also mentioned that there are “over 15 others” on the team, but no further information is provided regarding these individuals. There is a fair balance between individuals with a background in technology, business, and finance. There are two blockchain developers, one of which has had experience working on blockchain-related projects.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.8
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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?

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

Token Sale

The total number of SFU tokens is not entirely clear: “NB total tokens issued is currently 200M. Following the ICO all tokens not sold or allocated will be burned. To reach hard capof $49mn, we expect to release 100M SFU or fewer.” Token distribution: 65% will be sold during the ICO, 25% is for founders, the team, and the advisory board, and 10% is for the market marking pool. Vesting periods for founders and team members are indicated (at least 6 months after the ICO is completed).The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (40% for licenses and compliance, 15% for infrastructure, 15% for technology, 10% for people, 15% for marketing and 5% for business development). The strategy of funding allocation is briefly discussed for two different levels of funding (soft cap and hard cap). The soft cap is $10MM USD and the hard cap is $49MM USD, where 1 SFU = 0.0001 BTC. The token sale takes place from February 19, 2018 to April 30, 2018.

Product

The level of competition with projects that aim to provide easy-to-use, cryptocurrency-related financial services is quite high. There is a brief section in the whitepaper discussing Saifu’s thoughts on their competition, and it is mentioned that that the organization welcomes competitors and that they “see room for 8–10 organizations”, but also that “none of [their] competitors currently offer the full package that Saifu offers”. A fairly thorough comparison between Saifu and four competitors (Monaco, Bankera, Revolut, and Crypterium) is provided, along parameters of licensing, security, user interface, card issuance, and crypto trading. Saifu intends to focus on licensing and security and believes Revolut to be its strongest competitor, but criticizes Revolut’s approach to security by stating that multi-signature cold-storage wallets are susceptible to hacks. However, further discussion regarding this statement is not provided in the whitepaper. With regard to Saifu’s approach to security, the platform will store access keys within a proprietary security system (Thales Hardware Security Module). Specific details regarding this module are not provided in the document and there is a lack of thorough comparison to other decentralized security solutions. It is stated that the product is currently in closed beta testing. There is a video demonstration of the desktop application available on the Saifu YouTube page. A public GitHub page is not provided.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.8

Use of Blockchain

SFU is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to pay for all transaction fees in the Saifu ecosystem. Transaction fees are payed with SFU tokens. SFU tokens are also used for the loyalty program, where users will be rewarded with for holding or using SFU tokens. The blockchain technology utilized by the platform is not innovative, as it is primarily used for the creation/exchange of tokens.

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?

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?

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
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:
2.4

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 40 pages in length. The technology plan is presented with low levels of detail. Information regarding platform security consists primarily of a list of features as opposed to an in-depth technical discussion of the security features and how they compare with existing solutions. The business plan is presented in moderate detail (approximately 2 pages) and discusses sales channels, cash flow estimates, as well as user acquisition estimates. Overall, the whitepaper is visually appealing and is moderately comprehensive.

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?

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
3.0

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from April 2016 to 2019 (and beyond) and contains moderate levels of detail. There are 13 major milestones, 7 of which have been or will be completed by the second half of 2018, and more milestones are presented in the following section of the document. Mobile payments, IBAN personal accounts, and principal licenses for Visa and Mastercard are planned for the second half 2018.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasibility

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.8

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a brief disclaimer section at the beginning of the document as well as a paragraph at the end of the document which discusses legal considerations. It is explicitly stated that SFU tokens are not to be considered securities. It is expected that more legal documentation would be included, considering the the platform’s emphasis on compliance and license acquisition – Saifu emphasizes that it is fully regulated as a financial institution, and claims to adhere to strict KYC/AML procedures, as well as have an in-depth risk management strategy. Standard ‘Terms of Service’, ‘Token Sale Terms’, and ‘Privacy Policy’ documents are also provided on the 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
Compliance Score:
2.8

Company and Team

It is stated that Saifu is a licensed financial institution, holding a license from the Czech National Bank (as of May 2017), and that the platform’s security measures are reviewed by independent regulators, while its business operations are audited by Deloitte.
11 individuals are listed on the Saifu website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to LinkedIn profiles. It is also mentioned that there are “over 15 others” on the team, but no further information is provided regarding these individuals. There is a fair balance between individuals with a background in technology, business, and finance. There are two blockchain developers, one of which has had experience working on blockchain-related projects.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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:
3.8

Token Sale

The total number of SFU tokens is not entirely clear: “NB total tokens issued is currently 200M. Following the ICO all tokens not sold or allocated will be burned. To reach hard capof $49mn, we expect to release 100M SFU or fewer.” Token distribution: 65% will be sold during the ICO, 25% is for founders, the team, and the advisory board, and 10% is for the market marking pool. Vesting periods for founders and team members are indicated (at least 6 months after the ICO is completed).The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (40% for licenses and compliance, 15% for infrastructure, 15% for technology, 10% for people, 15% for marketing and 5% for business development). The strategy of funding allocation is briefly discussed for two different levels of funding (soft cap and hard cap). The soft cap is $10MM USD and the hard cap is $49MM USD, where 1 SFU = 0.0001 BTC. The token sale takes place from February 19, 2018 to April 30, 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website