ChronoLogic

ChronoLogic is creating a way for individuals and companies to secure value through Proof-of-Time. The company is doing so by creating the Chronos Platform – a way for people to create smart contracts pegged to time.

About ChronoLogic

ChronoLogic is the first crypto to offer a brand new method of securing value: Proof-of-Time. By pegging value to time – which is truly immutable and irreversible – ChronoLogic will transform industries such as finance, transportation & eCommerce. The way ChronoLogic will transform such industries is through the following three technologies:

  • DAY token. The DAY token represents a moment in time. DAY tokens may be saved as a store of value as well as spent by companies and individuals on their projects.
  • TimeMint. A TimeMint generates DAY tokens (details below).
  • Chronos Platform. This platform will allow individuals and companies to create applications which use DAY tokens.
[su_vimeo url=”https://player.vimeo.com/video/225394114″]

Examples of ways in which individuals and companies may use DAY tokens along with the Chronos Platform are:

  • Finance

Modeling interest accruing over time requires a Proof-of-Time token to launch a debt instrument.

  • eCommerce

Buying a time-based service necessitates a Proof-of-Time token, which is automatically released once the time has elapsed.

  • Employees & Freelancers

Working where their time-based labor contribution results in automated payments via a Proof-of-Time token system.

  • Travel

An airline or train company activates a Proof-of-Time smart contract where travel delays result in automated refunds to the waiting customer.

  • Software

A customer uses a software where payment is based on time used. They would automatically spend their Proof-of-Time token.

To implement this new technology and create the Chronos Platform, ChronoLogic is holding a crowdsale. The crowdsale begins on August 28th 2017. The Ethereum hard cap is 38,383 Eth – which will purchase a maximum of 1,038,743 DAY tokens and maximum of 3,333 TimeMints.

ChronoLogic ICO Review

The minimum contribution will be 1 ETH with a maximum of 333 Eth per contributor. Every contributor will receive 24 DAY tokens for every 1 ETH contribution as well as 1 TimeMint per contributor. After the crowdsale the only way additional DAY can be produced is though a TimeMint. At the conclusion of the crowdsale and distribution of TimeMint’s and DAY tokens to contributors – each TimeMint will begin minting DAY tokens.

A TimeMint is a specific minting address.

  • Each TimeMint will produce DAY tokens according to its minting power.
  • Each TimeMint will have a specific minting power called ChronoPower.
  • ChronoPower ranges from 1% to 0.5%
  • ChronoPower of X% means that the TimeMint is able to produce X% of its balance and add it to the current balance at the end of the day.

For example: if a TimeMint has 1% as its ChronoPower & 100 DAY as its balance, then on the first day the TimeMint will mint 1 DAY token, which will be added to the TimeMint’s balance resulting in 101 DAY. On the second day the TimeMint will mint 1% of its 101 DAY tokens totaling 1.01 DAY resulting in a balance of 102.01 and so on.

ChronoLogic ICO Review

That said, it is worth noting that the ultimate supply of DAY tokens is capped. ChronoPower decays linearly with time. Every 88 days ChronoPower is halved. These 88 day halving periods are called a ChronoEra. Eventually – after many ChronoEra’s – the ChronoPower of TimeMint’s will be essentially ZERO – thus capping the ultimate supply of DAY tokens.

ChronoLogic ICO Review

Each contributor will receive a TimeMint – as previously stated. However, early contributors will receive TimeMint’s with more ChronoPower than later contributors. The first contributor receives TimeMint0001 with the highest ChronoPower of 1% while the last contributor will receive the TimeMint with the lowest ChronoPower of 0.5%. 

Only a maximum of 3,333 TimeMint’s will ever be created and distributed. TimeMints will be transferable in the future.

ChronoLogic ICO Review

Lead Team:

  • Deven Soni – former Goldman Sachs, Lazard & Highland Capital investment banker & principal

investor in charge of deploying over $300M of capital; currently General Partner at Wired Investors

in charge of the Crypto Private Equity strategy & implementing proof-of-time.

  • Eric Weiss – bringing along the backing of the entire Digital Strategies team to ChronoLogic, he and

his team are the blockchain Proof-of-Time concept originators; pre-ICO EOS equity investor; Crypto

Private Equity investor & advisor to Polymath, a Blockchain Security Token Platform currently in stealth mode.

  • Jovar Gaylan – mathematician and computer scientist; architect of the future Proof-of-Time

Chronos platform; co-founder of multiple software startups including VideoRemix, a video

personalization B2B platform.

  • Lee Pennington – serial SaaS entrepreneur, private equity investor & crypto-marketing expert

managing outreach, PR, Slack & live crypto-webinars.

  • Toshendra Sharma – Forbes 30 under 30; founder of Allchains, a Blockchain-as-a-Service company

and Toshblocks; well-known instructor & speaker in the Blockchain space teaching more than

11,000 students worldwide across 145+ countries.

Advisor & Initial investor:

  • Wired Investors – Digital Asset & Crypto Private Equity fund backing ChronoLogic, collaborating to

identify Proof-of-Time acquisition targets & to implement Proof-of-Time use cases in private equity,

venture capital, hedge fund & debt style investments.

Crowdsale Details

Token Sale Dates ICO launch 28 August 2017.
Total Supply ChronoLogic will create a fixed number of 1,038,743 DAY tokens and maximum of 3,333 TimeMints prior to the Token Sale.
Raise Limits 38,383 ETH
Pricing Structure 1 ETH =  24 DAY tokens and 1 TimeMint. Each TimeMint will have a specific ChronoPower. Early contributors will have a ChronoPower starting at 1% and falling in a steady linear fashion to 0.05% for final contributors.

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       https://chronologic.network/uploads/Chronologic_Whitepaper.pdf

Comprehensively presents an ambitious if somewhat ambiguous business plan.

Team Experienced team of business professionals who understand emerging blockchain technology. Wired advisors bring in expertise related to blockchain, government, financial services, data science, and public relations.
Location N/A
Blockchain Ethereum
Project Code N/A
Prototype None
Token Rights DAY token holders have rights to buy, sell, and trade DAY. TimeMint holders have rights to mint additional DAY according to their TimeMint’s ChronoPower.

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

Interested in deeper analysis – Chronologic?

[su_button url=”/contact-us/” target=”blank” size=”8″ center=”yes”]Contact Us[/su_button]
Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

4.0
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

4.2
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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.

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.4
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?

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?

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

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.0
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.0
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

4.0
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.

Company and Team

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.0
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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?

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

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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Hardly any (or no) competition.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
Product Score:
4.0

Use of Blockchain

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Novel blockchain and service.
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 Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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.
Use of Blockchain Score:
4.2

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
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?

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?

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:
3.4

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
3.0

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None in the near (or any) future.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Solely; a passive investment vehicle.
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:
2.0

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Accomplished, recognized.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited 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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
Company and Team Score:
4.0

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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.
Token Sale Score:
3.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website