Votem

VotemĀ® is a blockchain-based mobile voting platform enabling citizens around the world to easily vote online with unprecedented verifiability, accessibility, security, and transparency.

About Votem

Votem is an online/mobile voting platform. VAST (Verifiability, Accessibility, Security, Transparency) tokens are used to access the CastIron platform, which provides features that assist with the operation of elections, including voter authentication, mobile integration, and voter anonymity.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
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?

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?

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

There are a few organizations attempting to bring the verification and immutability benefits of blockchain technology into the traditional voting system (which is primarily an analog-based), thus the project has potential for disruption. It is stated that in 2015, one of Votem’s mobile applications was used in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election by Washington DC’s Board of Elections. The GitHub page is not provided, but can be found through manual search and shows low levels of content and activity.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.2
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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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

VAST is an ERC20 compliant token. It is stated that tokens will “allow secure access to the VAST network and CastIron platform”. The CastIron platform provides application functionality for running elections and enables mobile voting, among other features. The platform will use a proof-of-vote protocol and the current blockchain utilizes the Tendermint framework. Details of these aspects of the platform are not discussed at great length in the whitepaper. It is stated that “casting and storing votes on the blockchain, will require at least 1 (one) VAST Token per ballot to be processed”. Votem does not make it clear why a custom token is required for this project, beyond a means to generate funding.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.0
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

At the time of writing this review, only the whitepaper is available on the Votem website, without any accompanying documents. The whitepaper is quite short at 18 pages. The technology plan is presented with very low levels of detail. Discussion regarding the technology, such as the consensus protocol and the proposed features of the platform (voter anonymizing schemas, mobile integration, etc) is absent from the whitepaper. There is also a lack of information provided regarding the business plan, more specifically the token sale. The document discusses various barriers to mass adoption of the platform (high levels of regulation, high resistance to new voting approaches, etc.), but does little to discuss how the organization plans to overcome these obstacles. Overall, the whitepaper significantly lacks detail.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

1.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

The development roadmap is not provided in the whitepaper or the Votem website.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.8
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain disclaimers and has low levels of content regarding legal considerations of the platform/token sale. It is stated that acquiring certification for Votem “can take from 9 months to many years and cost upwards of millions of dollars”. It is not explicitly mentioned whether VAST tokens should be considered securities. KYC will be used for the token sale and only accredited investors are able to participate.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.

Company and Team

Votem Corp. was founded in 2014 and is based in Cleveland, Ohio. It is stated that Votem is currently a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council, and a registered vendor with the Elections Assistance Commission. The small team is comprised of 5 individuals who are listed in the whitepaper along with their profile pictures, job titles, and links to LinkedIn profiles for most (a paper written by the security architect is provided instead of a LinkedIn profile). The skill set of the team is lacking with regard to developers. Also, the CTO is also concurrently working as a CEO as well as a CTO/board member for different organizations, thus commitment to this project is questionable. Overall, competency regarding technological development is not assured considering the nature of this project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.2
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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

There is little information provided regarding the public token sale. The (target) total number of VAST tokens is 300 million (49% will be sold to the public). The allocation of funds is not discussed. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is unspecified.

Product

There are a few organizations attempting to bring the verification and immutability benefits of blockchain technology into the traditional voting system (which is primarily an analog-based), thus the project has potential for disruption. It is stated that in 2015, one of Votem’s mobile applications was used in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election by Washington DC’s Board of Elections. The GitHub page is not provided, but can be found through manual search and shows low levels of content and activity.

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?

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?

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:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

VAST is an ERC20 compliant token. It is stated that tokens will “allow secure access to the VAST network and CastIron platform”. The CastIron platform provides application functionality for running elections and enables mobile voting, among other features. The platform will use a proof-of-vote protocol and the current blockchain utilizes the Tendermint framework. Details of these aspects of the platform are not discussed at great length in the whitepaper. It is stated that “casting and storing votes on the blockchain, will require at least 1 (one) VAST Token per ballot to be processed”. Votem does not make it clear why a custom token is required for this project, beyond a means to generate 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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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:
2.2

Whitepaper

At the time of writing this review, only the whitepaper is available on the Votem website, without any accompanying documents. The whitepaper is quite short at 18 pages. The technology plan is presented with very low levels of detail. Discussion regarding the technology, such as the consensus protocol and the proposed features of the platform (voter anonymizing schemas, mobile integration, etc) is absent from the whitepaper. There is also a lack of information provided regarding the business plan, more specifically the token sale. The document discusses various barriers to mass adoption of the platform (high levels of regulation, high resistance to new voting approaches, etc.), but does little to discuss how the organization plans to overcome these obstacles. Overall, the whitepaper significantly lacks detail.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
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:
2.0

Roadmap

The development roadmap is not provided in the whitepaper or the Votem website.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
Feasibility

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

1.0
N/A
1 - A pipe dream.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

1.0
N/A
1 - Founders' instant gratification.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

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

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

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain disclaimers and has low levels of content regarding legal considerations of the platform/token sale. It is stated that acquiring certification for Votem “can take from 9 months to many years and cost upwards of millions of dollars”. It is not explicitly mentioned whether VAST tokens should be considered securities. KYC will be used for the token sale and only accredited investors are 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
1.8

Company and Team

Votem Corp. was founded in 2014 and is based in Cleveland, Ohio. It is stated that Votem is currently a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council, and a registered vendor with the Elections Assistance Commission. The small team is comprised of 5 individuals who are listed in the whitepaper along with their profile pictures, job titles, and links to LinkedIn profiles for most (a paper written by the security architect is provided instead of a LinkedIn profile). The skill set of the team is lacking with regard to developers. Also, the CTO is also concurrently working as a CEO as well as a CTO/board member for different organizations, thus commitment to this project is questionable. Overall, competency regarding technological development is not assured considering the nature of this project.

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.0

Token Sale

There is little information provided regarding the public token sale. The (target) total number of VAST tokens is 300 million (49% will be sold to the public). The allocation of funds is not discussed. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is 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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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:
1.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website