In-Depth Review

2.9
  • Cryptum

  • Funding the ultimate board games with free access for token owners
  • 2.9

About Cryptum

Cryptum, a new project that consists of hardwareBG.com (a popular Bulgarian IT and hardware forums) founders and supporters, is the first ever company aimed at creating a high-end board game development and publishing business, crowdfunded by a token sale. Its key goal is to steer away from the need to rely on exchange speculation based on the company’s success or hype for creating a value for their tokens, by devising a multi funnel financial solution, for the short and long term. Cryptum plans on investing in multiple interlinked projects, like board games, a mining farm and a cryptocurrency, diversifying the sources of future funding and profits.

Cryptum’s first game is thematically named Blockchain: The Cryptocurrency Board Game and allows up to five players to compete by building mining rigs, investing in ICOs, buying and upgrading high-end mining hardware and more,  with the goal of owning the most Bitcoins and Ethereum at the end of the game. Blockchain simulates both the competition and cooperation between miners by using solo and pooled mining, difficulty changes and market development. ICO offerings add some risk-taking elements to the endgame. Players can upgrade their hardware with more powerful GPUs or even ASICs, install advanced software and updates, and invest in token crowdsales while they are collecting, selling and even dumping their altcoins in favor of Bitcoin or Ethereum at the end of each round, or speculating that they will have a higher cost in the future. Player interaction is achieved through card drafting each round and event manipulation during the game turns. Cryptum has plans for at least four expansions for the game, featuring: Exchanges, mining farms, forks and an ultimate game-changing final expansion called: “Project 2020“. Each of the first three expansions would introduce current market updates to the base game, new or updated cryptocurrencies, new hardware upgrades and gameplay mechanics.

Along with Bitcoin: The Cryptocurrency Board Game, which is expected to be released around the third quarter of 2018 (Oct. 2018 according to roadmap),  Cryptum has announced at least 3 more games in the pipeline:

  • Primewarp: Genesis – a post-cyberpunk shooter with many unique features and mechanics that would appeal to almost every gamer, featuring a host of game modes. The game is massive and Cryptum has even prepared an expansion for it, called “Blades and Fire”, adding even more content and the possibility to play 5-player games.
  • Magic in a box – a game with over 800 cards with exquisite art designed for players who want to play the traditional TCG (Stands for ‘trading card game’, the likes of Magic: The Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh!) with friends and families, but without the need for constant investment in new and expensive cards. the game would require a tremendous effort in the art direction, but Cryptum claims they are prepared to turn it into an enormous project.
  • The last announced game is a classical cyberpunk-noir adventure for 1 to 4 players, set in a not so distant dystopian future, at a time when cryptocurrencies are already widely accepted. Right now this game is just a concept.

Cryptum is raising funds by means of an ICO of their Ethereum-based token called Cryptum token. Cryptum tokens are based on the Ethereum blockchain, so they are connected to your Ethereum addresses, and will require ‘gas’ for transactions. Important to note, 100% of the tokens are offered to the buyers and not a single CRTM will be kept by the team. The company targets a million tokens initially (Stage I, 16 Sept-16 Oct 2017), then 100,000 more (Stage II, 17 Oct-17 Nov 2017).

Unsold tokens will be burned.  Investors in Cryptum tokens will gain access to Cryptum’s games just by owning certain amounts of Cryptum tokens, divided by tiers:

TierWhat you getPrice(In CRTM)
1The Blockchain game, coins and shared profits25
2The Blockchain game, 4 expansions, coins and shared profits35
3Full access to all 4 announced games and already announced expansions (4+1), coins and shared profits65
4Lifetime subscription to every game and expansion published, coins and shared profits100

What Cryptum offers their investors are four different ways to get value from their investment: After the launch of Crpytum’s new mineable cryptocurrency, token holders will be able to gain an amount of coins based on the number of Cryptum tokens they own. The new coin, dubbed Cryptum coin(CRYC), is said by Cryptum to be exchangeable through exchanges, though currently the exact CRYC to CRTM ratio has not been established and no major exchanges has announced they will support CRYC. This new coin will offer token holders a new way to capitalize on their investment in Cryptum by means of exchanging or holding their Cryptum coins.  Along with CRYC, token holders will be entitled to 20% to 40% from each of the games’ profits (percentages vary depending on the game development cost), generated through Kickstarter, retail and wholesale sales. This is applicable to every game Cryptum will ever publish under their brand. 30% of the total amount raised through the crowdsale would be then invested in a small to mid-range mining farm. The mining farm will offer a different independent source of income to support existing and future projects. Cryptum’s mining project will kick off with 50% of the profits divided among token holders for the first 4 months and then will start lowering them gradually by 5% every 5 months down to 30% at the end of the second year of operation, which will mark the end of the shared profits from mining. Every income henceforth will go into supporting the company’s projects, specifically new games and expansions, and support of the new exchangeable coin, CRYC.

In summary, token holders are entitled to:

  • The games themselves, along with the expansions
  • Cryptumcoin (CRYC) to exchange in markets
  • A portion from the games’ profits, ranging between 20% and 40%, indefinitely
  • A portion of the profits from the mining farm, ranging between 50% and 30%, for 2 years.

The management behind the project is somewhat unknown outside the IT/board game scene of Bulgaria. Cryptum is supported by and comprised of people that are behind the largest Bulgarian IT community, hardwareBG.com, started in 1999. Cryptum’s partners are BoardGames.BG, HardwareBG.com and Crypto Mining Blog, and the company’s headquarters reside with Inistrad Ltd., located in Sofia, Bulgaria. Inistrad will be in charge of local operations, board games and mining projects management.  Another project by Cryptum’s team is a new ICO listing website dubbed icodbase, as a direct response to the growing numbers of ‘paid only’ listing websites. Icodbase, through Cryptum,  will only charge companies for advertisement and cosmetic packages targeted at promoting specific campaigns. In the future, they plan on adding audits and ranking systems.

Lead Team (information taken from company website):

  • Nikolai Tsekov, Project manager: Nikolai is Cryptum’s project manager and a lead designer for many of the board games they develop, as well as main contact person for any freelance and company contracts. He’s still administrating over the hardwareBG.com IT forums, but after over a decade of work as an IT journalist, editor and a PR specialist, in 2013 he started his own retail company, now owning one of the top Bulgarian tabletop hobby stores – BoardGames.BG. He has studied robotics techology and computer programming.
  • Anton Belev, Lead developer: Anton is a huge tech enthusiast and the leading figure behind many online projects: Hardware, 3D/VR, 3D printing, software, actually anything IT-related, and a whole lot of hobbies to complement his skills. He’s responsible for most of the software development for the Cryptum projects, and studied Computer Science at New Bulgerian  University in Sofia, Bulgaria.
  • Kiril Venev, CTO: Kiril is Cryptum’s chief technology expert. One of the co-founders of the leading Bulgarian IT community at hardwareBG.com and the company with the same name.
  • Grigor Stoichkov, Technical Advisor & Procurement: Another of the hardwareBG.com founders, Grigor is lead technical advisor of the Cryptum Mining project.Tihomir Terziev, Board game co-designer: Tihomir is probably the most experienced board gamers in Bulgaria, and his work in BoardGames.BG contributed to his experience with a deep understanding of the players’ needs. Being an avid gamer himself also helps with beta testing and rules writing.
  • Alexandra Pashova, Board game design and testing: Alexandra has an unique position in the Cryptum Board Games project.
  • Zahary Dimitrov, Games 2D design: Zachary is a gifted freelance designer, photographer and artist, but more importantly – he’s a board gamer too, which makes him understand well the necessities in the layout design and practical decision-making in the art direction.

Crowdsale Details

Token Sale DatesStage I (ETC&BTC): 16 September 2017 – 16 October 2017

Stage II (+Altcoins): 17 October 2017 – 17 November 2017

Total Supply300,000-1 million target for stage I, 100,000 token for stage II. No additional token allocation. Unsold tokens will be burned.
Raise Limits1 million tokens.
Pricing StructureExchange rate during stage I: 1 ETH = 50 CRTM, 1 BTC = 600 CRTM

The pricing henceforth and the ratios between CRTM and CRYM are yet to be determined and the corresponding speculations are explained in that segment

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper      https://cryptum.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CryptumWhitepaperV2.pdf

Comprehensively presents an ambitious business plan combined with real passion for board games.

Team Presents an ambitious endeavor to catapult the board gaming industry through blockchain technology. Their plans are solid, diversifying their income streams helps with hedging the risks of a specific product failing. Nonetheless, they seem to know tenfolds more about designing games than about blockchain technology. Their team is not very well known; some core team members do not have any information about them online.
LocationInastrad LTD, Sofia Bulgaria
BlockchainEthereum
Project CodeN/A
Prototypehttps://cryptum.co

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

Interested in deeper analysis – Cryptum?

Team

Crowdsale Details

Project Highlights

Ratings

3.8
Product

Product

Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

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?

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
1.4
Use of Blockchain

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
3.4
Whitepaper

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
3.0
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
1.6
Compliance

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
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?

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Good, sufficient for each aspect.
3.8
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Majority of tokens sold, strict vesting periods, milestone dependent release.
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

Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

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?

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

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.

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.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

5.0
N/A
5 - Thorough, viable, convincing, promising.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

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?

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?

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

Token Sale

Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and plans.
Raise Amount Min

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Reasonable, sensible.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Majority of tokens sold, strict vesting periods, milestone dependent release.
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