VALID

The VALID platform will consist of a mobile wallet for users to manage their digital identity and personal data and a web application for data consumers to buy and access that data.

About VALID

Procivis is developing a digital identity platform that will enable individuals to become fully self-sovereign citizens, putting “the control over personal data back into the hands of the individual user”. VALID is an iteration of this platform, and allows users to “expand the digital identity sphere beyond personal attributes” by including other data such as “credit card transactions, geolocation logs, browsing history” that users will be able to control and share (if they want to). Users will be able to sell this data on the VALID marketplace in exchange for VLD tokens.

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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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

A pilot project is currently underway, with a full roll-out of eID+ (an integrated identity and personal data platform) to the residents of the Swiss Canton of Schaffhausen. Digital identity is a sector of blockchain-related projects with a fair number of competitors. The ability to store and exchange data is not a significantly innovative idea. However, VALID does have the advantage that its target user base is the mass market.

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?

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?

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

VLD follows the ERC20 protocol. How VALID will incorporate blockchain technology is discussed only vaguely in the whitepaper, with excessive use of generic descriptions of blockchain technology and smart contracts. VLD tokens are used as a means of exchange on the platform and are primarily a means of funding.

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 contains a fair amount of information regarding the business and technology plans. However, the technology related information is given mainly in layman terms – it would be desirable to have more technological specifications of the platform. The overall logistics of how the platform intends to operate are explained in moderate detail. Overall the whitepaper is easy to read, but it lacks concision as well as technological detail.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
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?

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?

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 VALID whitepaper is fairly vague, with a total of 7 milestones spanning from May 2017 to January 2019. There are no details or discussion as to what each milestone entails. Most of the milestones are focused on technological platform developments, and most of the milestones reached so far have been the creation of the beta version of eID+ and its corresponding application.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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

There is a disclaimer section in the whitepaper. The language lacks a sense of professionalism. It is stated that VLD tokens should not be considered securities (in any jurisdiction) and that “it is entirely possible that VALID will never be implemented or adopted, or that only a portion of our vision will be realized”. KYC guidelines will be used for the token sale and residents from the US will not be able to participate.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.6
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?

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?

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 core team of 9 individuals is presented in the whitepaper with only profile pictures and job titles. LinkedIn profiles can be found through the VALID website. The team’s skill set is heavily focused on business as opposed to technology. The developers on the team do not seem to have extensive smart contract development experience.

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)?

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?

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?

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

Token Sale

The total number of VLD tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 30% is for the growth fund, 9% is for employee incentivization, 9% is for the foundation, 2% is for the initial token offering costs). The allocation of funds is described in moderately high detail. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $25MM USD, where 1 VLD = 0.065 USD. The token sale takes place on February 24, 2018 to March 17, 2018.

Product

A pilot project is currently underway, with a full roll-out of eID+ (an integrated identity and personal data platform) to the residents of the Swiss Canton of Schaffhausen. Digital identity is a sector of blockchain-related projects with a fair number of competitors. The ability to store and exchange data is not a significantly innovative idea. However, VALID does have the advantage that its target user base is the mass market.

Category Breakdown
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass 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:
2.8

Use of Blockchain

VLD follows the ERC20 protocol. How VALID will incorporate blockchain technology is discussed only vaguely in the whitepaper, with excessive use of generic descriptions of blockchain technology and smart contracts. VLD tokens are used as a means of exchange on the platform and are primarily a means of funding.

Category Breakdown
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?

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:
2.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper contains a fair amount of information regarding the business and technology plans. However, the technology related information is given mainly in layman terms – it would be desirable to have more technological specifications of the platform. The overall logistics of how the platform intends to operate are explained in moderate detail. Overall the whitepaper is easy to read, but it lacks concision as well as technological detail.

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 VALID whitepaper is fairly vague, with a total of 7 milestones spanning from May 2017 to January 2019. There are no details or discussion as to what each milestone entails. Most of the milestones are focused on technological platform developments, and most of the milestones reached so far have been the creation of the beta version of eID+ and its corresponding application.

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?

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?

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

There is a disclaimer section in the whitepaper. The language lacks a sense of professionalism. It is stated that VLD tokens should not be considered securities (in any jurisdiction) and that “it is entirely possible that VALID will never be implemented or adopted, or that only a portion of our vision will be realized”. KYC guidelines will be used for the token sale and residents from the US will not be able to participate.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
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:
2.4

Company and Team

The core team of 9 individuals is presented in the whitepaper with only profile pictures and job titles. LinkedIn profiles can be found through the VALID website. The team’s skill set is heavily focused on business as opposed to technology. The developers on the team do not seem to have extensive smart contract development experience.

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?

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?

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:
2.6

Token Sale

The total number of VLD tokens is 1 billion (50% is for sale, 30% is for the growth fund, 9% is for employee incentivization, 9% is for the foundation, 2% is for the initial token offering costs). The allocation of funds is described in moderately high detail. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $25MM USD, where 1 VLD = 0.065 USD. The token sale takes place on February 24, 2018 to March 17, 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)?

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?

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?

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