AICoin

AICoin is a passive investment vehicle created by First Global Credit (FGC), a bitcoin exchange and platform for trading in stocks, ETFs, and futures.

About AICoin

AICoin is a passive investment vehicle created by First Global Credit (FGC), a bitcoin exchange and platform for trading in stocks, ETFs, and futures, with offices in Switzerland and Hong Kong. Its strategy consists of utilizing AI models and FGC’s proprietary technology to optimize trading in the top cryptocurrency markets and take advantage of market inefficiencies, and to then use the generated profits to finance investments in early-stage companies focused on AI and public blockchain technology. The AI models are designed to adjust to changing market conditions in real-time and to exploit short-term market opportunities, thus providing a constant stream of funds funnelled into a Seed Investment Pool. Five pre-vetted start-up companies will be presented to AICoin token holders quarterly, to vote on for potential investment; token holders will be able to vote for their preferred choice of the five investment options, along with an option of making no investment in the current period.

The assets, which will be collectively owned by the AICoin token holders, will be managed by a Singapore based holding company. All the assets, be they capital, market positions or positions in start-up companies are to remain in the company’s holding for future asset growth. The company will operate bank or exchange accounts as well as cold storage wallets for holding selected fiat and crypto currencies, comprising its Coin Pool, which will be traded using the AI models outlined on the development website. Every week in which the Coin Pool plus profit reaches a new peak, 10% of the profit will be paid to FGC developers for the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of the AI trading models, and 50% will go to the Seed Investment Pool (also held by the Singapore company), while the remaining 40% will be retained within the Coin Pool to increase the funds available for trading. Token holders will be able to validate the holdings of the entire Coin Pool at any time, to ensure assets and performance is reported accurately on a continual basis. The company will pay tax on all profits, as well as audit fees, running costs, and expenses, which will be laid out in quarterly audit reports prepared by an independent international accountancy firm.

Token holders will use their combined expertise to select long-term seed investments in the fields of public blockchain and AI. The company’s Investment Board will review proposals and and select the most promising five prospects to put forward to a quarterly vote by the token holders. The company with the highest number of votes (weighted by token ownership) will receive funding from the company (following due diligence). It is also possible for the highest vote to be ‘None’, in which case no investment will be made in that quarter. When a seed investment is ultimately sold, 10% of the profit will be paid to FGC for managing the investment process, while 90% will be re-invested in the Seed Investment Pool. The Investment Board will initially consist of five members, two of which will be appointed by the token holders, and three by FGC. Token holders will be appointed to the Investment Board in an annual vote, for a duration of two years, where every year one or the other will be replaced.

AICoin is structured to build asset value for the benefit of token holders. To allow AICoin token holders to realize some of their gains, the token will be tradeable on a number of exchanges including FGC, Poloniex, and Bittrex. There will be no further issuance of tokens – new investors will need to purchase tokens in the open market. The value of the AICoin token is expected to reflect both the trading profits and the anticipated value of the seed investments. To ensure liquidity, AICoin will release up to 10% of the Seed Investment Pool to purchase tokens at 5% below current asset value, to be offered back into the market at 20% above purchase price. Profits accrued from the difference between buy and sale prices will be returned to the Seed Investment Pool.

AICoin ICO Review

Crowdsale Details

Token Sale Dates ICO ends on 28-August.
Total Supply 77,000,000 tokens
Raise Limits N/A; 100% of assets collected during the ICO will be used for trading.
Pricing Structure 1 XBT = 100,000 XAI

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       https://www.aicoin.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/AICOIN.Whitepaper.20.08.17.pdf
Team AICoin is headed by founders Gavin Smith, Andy Tynan, and Lee Cooper.

Gavin Smith is the CEO of First Global Credit, and has 25 years of experience in finance; prior to FGC, he was  a senior pricing and risk analyst and a global derivatives and hedging product owner for Trafigura. Andy Tynan is a developer

with a 25-year history of working at banks and companies like Openlink financial. Lee Cooper has 17 years experience in development, is a senior software developer at FGC and lead architect at Standard Chartered Bank, and also has background at Trafigura.

The FGC board is comprised of Gavin Smith, COO Marcie Terman and board advisor Jon Matonis (founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation).  

Location Geneva, Surrey
Blockchain Ethereum
Project Code https://github.com/AICoin-io/AICoin
Prototype The AICoin artificial intelligence developers have been trading a live account and blogging about how the model learns and develops. You can review the blog and entire trade history on the developer’s blog.
Token Rights Voting rights on quarterly investments in blockchain and AI start-ups, weighted by number of tokens owned. Possible investment board membership.

*Disclosure – At the time of writing, cryptorated staff owned no AICoin tokens.

Interested in deeper analysis – AiCoin?

[su_button url=”/contact-us/” target=”blank” size=”8″ center=”yes”]Contact Us[/su_button]
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.4
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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.)?

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

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.8
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
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

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.4
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasiblity

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?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

3.2
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

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?

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Company and Team

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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.

Token Sale

Product

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
Product Score:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
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.)?

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:
1.4

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage, well written.
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.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
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:
3.8

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth.
Feasiblity

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?

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

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
3.4

Compliance

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Specific, detailed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
3.2

Company and Team

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
2.6

Token Sale

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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Solid exposure and interest, good impression.
Token Sale Score:
2.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website