DisLedger

Distributed ledger

About DisLedger

 

DisLedger is a trademarked and patent-pending distributed ledger technology (DLT), designed for capital markets and IoT micropayments (or other high-speed transactional systems), where privacy and transaction speed are paramount. DisLedger is a distributed concurrence (rather than blockchain) ledger, designed not only to surpass current blockchain transaction speed (its basic demo system is said to already scale to over 400,000 transactions per second), but also to eliminate the technical and organizational weaknesses of the current blockchain consensus models, while providing cryptographically secure, non-repudiable transactions and ledgers.

DisLedger

Despite there being various consensus models, blockchains generally require parties that aren’t involved in a given transaction to give their consent for the transaction to be conducted. This is because, when all the transactions on the network are recorded in a single ledger, members who are not party to a transaction must provide their approval for the transaction to be added to the ledger. This means than an organization may find itself dependent upon the approval of direct competitors to process its transactions, while these same competitors gain intelligence about its business dealings. DisLedger is designed for situations where this is unacceptable; while it provides the same benefits of immutable records and regulatory transparency, transactions are processed only by the actual parties involved.

Furthermore, since blockchain consensus protocols are complex and imperfect, and since blockchain networks are complex systems with a flux of members and no oversight, it can become very difficult and costly to prove that a given transaction was processed accurately and without manipulation, if/when a dispute arises. With a distributed concurrence ledger, the evidence that the parties agree is documented repeatedly, cryptographically secured, and validated continuously.

DisLedger

The shared counterparty ledger, which is private and accessible only to the parties involved, holds every transaction between the parties. For each transaction, both parties conduct a cryptographic hash on the contents of their transaction data, resulting in a transaction hash. If their transaction hashes are not equal, the transaction cannot be processed. Upon agreement, a hash of the counterparty ledger updated with the latest transaction is conducted by each party and provided to the other party for comparison. If these are equal, then this second concurrence irrefutably proves the accuracy not only of the latest transaction but of the whole chain of records as well. A log of these hashes and transaction attempts is maintained by both parties, and hashes can be repeatedly verified (and logged), thus providing a clear evidentiary trail of the transactions for dispute resolution. DisLedger also provides an accounting of the entire asset base of an organization via the organization’s Prime Ledger, to which each counterparty ledger is added. The Prime Ledger also provides the ability to use the assets for lending and collateral.

DisLedger

DisLedger is using tokenization to manage intellectual property licenses for its technology, which has already been in development for the past 1½ years. DisLedger tokens will give users the ability to license the technology on a per-transaction basis rather than having to purchase a full enterprise license. This allows organizations to build and deploy their own DisLedger systems and pay only for their actual usage over time. The per-transaction IP licenses will be issued as ERC20 standard tokens named DCL that can be purchased via the Ethereum network. This approach creates a hybrid system where users process transactions using DisLedger’s technology, while their licenses to use the technology are processed on the Ethereum network. With this novel utilization of the standard, and since there is no mining involved, there are no incremental transaction costs, no cryptocurrency, and no alt-asset risk.

DisLedger is headed by Dan Conner, who is also President of Packet Dynamics, a specialized IoT device and communications equipment provider for Beyond Line Of Sight (BLOS) and Satellite Communications (SATCOM) systems. Conner was previously VP Marketing and Sales of Innovative Concepts, a tactical communications company that supported military customers worldwide. He has also served in the US Army Special Forces. The company received Seed funding (undisclosed amount) in August 2016.

Crowdsale Details

Start Time 1-September-2017
End Time 30-September-2017
Total Supply N/A
Maximum Raise N/A
Pricing Structure Users will register with DisLedger, be verified, then be given instructions how to purchase DisLedger IP tokens during the soft launch/pre-sale and launch.
Holding of Funds N/A

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       The DisLedger whitepaper is an in-depth presentation of the architecture, however it does not go into technical details – the technology is patent pending. Much of what appears in the whitepaper is summarized in this review.
Team Headed by Dan Conner (see review); no information on other team members.
Location British Virgin Islands
Blockchain Ethereum for IP licensing, DisLedger for private transaction processing.
Project Code N/A (patent pending)
Prototype N/A
Token Rights Per-transaction IP licenses.
Token as Asset N/A

*Disclosure – At the time of writing, Cryptorated staff owned no DisLedger tokens.

Interested in deeper analysis – DisLedger?

3.8
Product

Product

Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
4.2
Use of Blockchain

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Real, tangible, utility-based value.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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.
4.0
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
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?

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

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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Well on the way.
4.6
Compliance

Compliance

Token Utility (value through usage)

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Foundational or varied use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Only through utility value, or airtight compliance.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional, audited.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
3.2
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?

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.
2.8
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)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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.

Product

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Original, specialized.
Product Score:
3.8

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Real, tangible, utility-based value.
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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
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)?

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

Is it easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Crystal clear. Enjoyable.
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?

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

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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Well on the way.
Roadmap Score:
4.0

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)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Foundational or varied use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Only through utility value, or airtight compliance.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional, audited.
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:
4.6

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?

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?

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:
3.2

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
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