In-Depth Review

3.5
  • ARToken by Cappasity

  • Cappasity is introducing a decentralized AR/VR Ecosystem for 3D content creation and exchange powered by ARToken.
  • 3.5

About ARToken by Cappasity

Cappasity is developing an easy, scalable platform for the creation, embedding, and analysis of 3D, AR, and VR content. Founded in 2013, the company introduced its patent-pending Easy 3D Scan software in 2015, launched its platform in January 2017, and has raised $1.8 million from VC funds and angel investors. Cappasity’s software, which is free to download, enables users to capture 3D views using standard photography equipment or even their smartphones, and export them directly into online stores, websites, social networks and apps. On the company’s website, users can find sample 3D images, guidelines for creating them, subscription plans for storage and distribution, and even a partner network for professional 3D product imaging services.

In addition, Cappasity is now introducing a global, blockchain-based ecosystem for 3D content creation and delivery, powered by the AR Token (AR). 3D content creators and distributors will be able to use the platform to monetize and share their creations, and will benefit from high-quality, device-compatible AR/VR/3D content, SDKs and plugins, tools for embedding content into mobile apps and websites, and AI analytics of consumer interactions. Storing the content base on the blockchain will give creators control over the use of their creations, and enable them to manage and protect their copyrights.

Cappasity ICO Review

The ecosystem will consist of an infrastructure layer encompassing the blockchain, software toolkits, and decentralized storage, and a marketplace layer encompassing content testing (a sandbox area) and exchange. The ecosystem will rely on the Cappasity technological platform with a variety of useful toolkits and an open API, so as to enable users to easily create quality 3D content and put it up for sale, and application developers to access it and integrate its use.

ARs will be used to buy or rent content on the platform and subscribe to the content database, and earned by creating, renting and selling, and moderating the unique content. All purchases and transactions will be regulated by smart contracts, and all content exchange details will be immutably stored on the blockchain, forming a record of transactions and licenses including details pertaining to usage and distribution permissions and terms. The platform will also utilize an “upvote” ranking system to promote good content and contributors, computer vision algorithms to find potential copyright infringement, and manual moderation in addition to automatic curation. Developers and active community contributors are to be supported through dedicated AR Funds: decentralized storage providers will be rewarded via a Storage Fund to which a percentage of every sale (~2%) will be funnelled, while developers, moderators, and other active contributors will be rewarded via a Daily Fund, also built on fees from transactions (unclear amount, ~8%).

 AR’s will be issued as ERC-20 Ethereum tokens and will require ‘gas’ for transactions.

Cappasity ICO Review

The amount of ARs sold in the crowdsale will comprise 70% of all ARs, and based on that amount another 12% will be set aside for early contributors and 18% for the founders’ long-term endowment (with 2 years’ vesting, 1 month cliff). Upon a successful token sale, 20% of raised funds will be dedicated to an Innovation Fund for developers of AR/VR/3D applications, and 10% to a Reward Fund for active content creators and contributors. Ultimately, rewards and remunerations are to be paid in ARs, but these funds are meant to incentivize ecosystem development at its start.

Cappasity ICO Review

Team

  • Kosta Popov, CEO, who previously founded Biart, a technology and entertainment product company that developed proprietary 3D engine technology and released games for Apple iOS, Android, PCs, Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony PlayStation 3 and Sony PlayStation Portable.
  • Alex Chegaev, CTO and co-founder, who has worked with Kosta Popov as technical leader of several cross-platform software projects.
  • Marianna Alshina, CBDO and co-founder, who has a digital marketing and business development background and is building relationships with the company’s core partners.

The company’s advisory board includes Jim Theberge (Director, Head of Product Management & Sales Strategy, Advanced Advertising at Verizon), Leo Batalov (Partner, Head of Emerging Growth Companies & Venture Capital Russia & CIS at DLA Piper), and Jeff Smith (entrepreneur in residence at Tech Futures Group, of which Cappasity is a client).

Other team members are not listed on the company’s website or whitepaper.

Team

#
Kosta Popov, CEO

Previously founded Biart, a technology and entertainment product company that developed proprietary 3D engine technology and released games for Apple iOS, Android, PCs, Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony PlayStation 3 and Sony PlayStation Portable.

#
Alex Chegaev, CTO and co-founder

Worked with Kosta Popov as a technical leader of several cross-platform software projects.

#
Marianna Alshina, CBDO and co-founder

Has a digital marketing and business development background and is building relationships with the company’s core partners.

Crowdsale Details

Start Time (Phase 1)

25-October 2017

End Time (Phase 1)

22-November 2017

Phase 2

Currently N/A

Total Supply

7,000,000,000 AR for sale, representing 70% of the total supply (10,000,000,000 AR)

Hard Cap

$30,000,000

Total Hard Cap

$50,000,000

Pricing Structure

$1 = 125 AR

Discounts and Bonuses

Phase 1 bonuses will depend on the tier the contribution is made, and on the amount contributed. The tier system is based on Cappacity’s Whitelist Application process and is defined as:

– First $10M (TIER 1) – 10% Bonus
– Second $10M (TIER 2) – 5% Bonus
– Third $10M (TIER 3) – 0% Bonus
Contribution size bonus: $100K-$300K – 5%, >$300K – 10%
These bonuses are independent and can be summed up.

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper

Provides a comprehensive and thorough ecosystem plan, but implementation or technical details are addressed only at a surface level.

Team

Only the three lead team members and three advisors are listed (see review). The technology appears to be based on Popov’s (along with Chegaev’s?) expertise. The team lists no talent devoted specifically to blockchain implementation and challenges.

Location

Santa Clara, California, USA

Blockchain

AR’s will be issued as ERC-20 Ethereum tokens and subsequently migrated to EOS once it is functional.

Project Code

N/A

Token Rights

Trade in 3D content and apps on the platform.

Ratings

4.4
Product

Product

Array

Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully operational.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
3.4
Use of Blockchain

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
3.0
Whitepaper

Whitepaper

Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
4.0
Roadmap

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
3.4
Compliance

Compliance

Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
3.6
Company and Team

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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.
2.6
Token Sale

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Product

Array

Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully operational.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially disruptive.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Mostly decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.

Whitepaper

Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Compliance

Token Utility (value through usage)

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

4.0
N/A
4 - Not as such, or compliance is 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?

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

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully 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.

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Most Read Reviews