Stockchain

StockChain aims to solve current issues of highly fragmented cryptocurrency markets and abundance of market data through a central information portal.

About Stockchain

Stockchain is a platform that performs financial/quotation analysis for cryptocurrency, while using machine learning in order to develop trading strategies and conduct trades. SCC tokens will be used to pay services fees on the platform (discounts will be provided for service fees paid in SCC) and commissions on trading gains (“some of which will compensate the program provider, and 30% of the rest will be destroyed”), as well as to settle transactions (margins, interests, derivatives, etc.) and to determine the VIP level of the user (for additional privileges).

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.8
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
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

The level of competition from blockchain-related projects focusing on financial services that target cryptocurrency trading is quite high. The whitepaper should provide more information on how Stockchain compares to its competitors. The level of innovation with respect to Stockchain’s implementation of blockchain technology is fairly low. The GitHub page is provided, and contains significantly low levels of content and detail.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.8
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
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?

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

SCC is an ERC20 compliant token and is used for transactions and service fees on the STOCKCHAIN platform. The amount of SCC held also determines the holder’s VIP status level, which can entitle the holder to extra privileges on the platform (privileges are not discussed in the whitepaper). It is stated that the organization plans “to develop a blockchain STOCKCHAIN especially designed for financial use and will transfer the existing tokens and on-chain data smoothly to the STOCKCHAIN”, however specific details regarding this custom blockchain solution are omitted from the document. Thus, there is no strong need for a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.6
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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 whitepaper is fairly long at 55 pages, and relies heavily on the use of figures to depict the proposed features of the platform and how it is intended to operate. The level of detail provided with regard to both the technical and business plans is fairly high. However, the readability of the whitepaper would increase if the content was more concise. For example, with regard to the technical discussion, there is a significant amount of content provided explaining aspects of the platform that are not unique to Stockchain (blockchain, ERC20 standard, smart contracts, TLS/SSL, etc).

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.4
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.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
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 October 2017 to Q4 2018, with 12 milestones that focus on the technical development of the platform for the second half of 2018. Milestones reached thus far include market surveys, team formation, and development of the underlying technological structure (no further details are provided). The PC version of the platform is planned to launch in April 2018, followed by the Android and iOS versions in May 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.6
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?

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 end of the document. It is explicitly that SCC tokens are not to be considered securities. There is also a section (approximately one page in length) that discusses the risks associated with the platform and the token. It is unknown whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether particular jurisdictions/demographics are prohibited from participating.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (e.g., no online profiles).
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 8 individuals is listed on STOCKCHAIN website, along with the members’ profile pictures and short descriptions. Links to social media accounts are not provided. The skill set of the team is strongly skewed towards business/finance as opposed to technology. There is a lack of team members with extensive experience working on blockchain related projects. LinkedIn profiles for the C-level executives could not be found.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.0
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

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?

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.

Token Sale

The total number of SCC tokens is 10 billion (60% is for sale, 20% is for the founding team, and 20% is for the management fund). Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is described in moderate levels of detail (45% for issuance, 20% for the fund and management committee, 20% for the founding team, and 15% for the incentivizing fund). The soft and hard caps are unspecified.

Product

The level of competition from blockchain-related projects focusing on financial services that target cryptocurrency trading is quite high. The whitepaper should provide more information on how Stockchain compares to its competitors. The level of innovation with respect to Stockchain’s implementation of blockchain technology is fairly low. The GitHub page is provided, and contains significantly low levels of content and detail.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
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:
1.8

Use of Blockchain

SCC is an ERC20 compliant token and is used for transactions and service fees on the STOCKCHAIN platform. The amount of SCC held also determines the holder’s VIP status level, which can entitle the holder to extra privileges on the platform (privileges are not discussed in the whitepaper). It is stated that the organization plans “to develop a blockchain STOCKCHAIN especially designed for financial use and will transfer the existing tokens and on-chain data smoothly to the STOCKCHAIN”, however specific details regarding this custom blockchain solution are omitted from the document. Thus, there is no strong need for a custom token other than to generate funds for the platform.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
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?

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:
1.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is fairly long at 55 pages, and relies heavily on the use of figures to depict the proposed features of the platform and how it is intended to operate. The level of detail provided with regard to both the technical and business plans is fairly high. However, the readability of the whitepaper would increase if the content was more concise. For example, with regard to the technical discussion, there is a significant amount of content provided explaining aspects of the platform that are not unique to Stockchain (blockchain, ERC20 standard, smart contracts, TLS/SSL, etc).

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
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:
2.6

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from October 2017 to Q4 2018, with 12 milestones that focus on the technical development of the platform for the second half of 2018. Milestones reached thus far include market surveys, team formation, and development of the underlying technological structure (no further details are provided). The PC version of the platform is planned to launch in April 2018, followed by the Android and iOS versions in May 2018.

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.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
2.4

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a brief disclaimer section at the end of the document. It is explicitly that SCC tokens are not to be considered securities. There is also a section (approximately one page in length) that discusses the risks associated with the platform and the token. It is unknown whether KYC will be used for the token sale and whether particular jurisdictions/demographics are prohibited from participating.

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?

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:
2.6

Company and Team

The team of 8 individuals is listed on STOCKCHAIN website, along with the members’ profile pictures and short descriptions. Links to social media accounts are not provided. The skill set of the team is strongly skewed towards business/finance as opposed to technology. There is a lack of team members with extensive experience working on blockchain related projects. LinkedIn profiles for the C-level executives could not be found.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

1.0
N/A
1 - Unverifiable (e.g., no online profiles).
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 SCC tokens is 10 billion (60% is for sale, 20% is for the founding team, and 20% is for the management fund). Vesting periods are clearly outlined. The allocation of funds is described in moderate levels of detail (45% for issuance, 20% for the fund and management committee, 20% for the founding team, and 15% for the incentivizing fund). The soft and hard caps are unspecified.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

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?

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.
Token Sale Score:
2.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website