EOS

EOS, by block.one, is a blockchain-based, decentralized operating system, designed to support commercial-scale decentralized applications by providing all of the necessary core functionality

About EOS

EOS, by block.one, is a blockchain-based, decentralized operating system, designed to support commercial-scale decentralized applications by providing all of the necessary core functionality (including databases, accounts with permissions, scheduling, authentication, and handling communication between the application and the internet), thus allowing developers  to focus on their own particular business logic. EOS.IO is software that allows businesses to build blockchain applications that resemble existing web-based applications, using an architecture similar to website frameworks.

Two promised features of EOS have really caught everyone’s attention, though: elimination of transaction fees (via an ownership model whereby users own and are entitled to use resources proportional to their stake, rather than having to pay for every transaction), and scalability (they say it can process millions of transactions per second with asynchronous communication and parallel processing). High transaction costs and bad throughput are Ethereum’s critical weaknesses, so these features make EOS a serious contender for the title of go-to blockchain development solution. Notwithstanding, since EOS is still largely conceptual, its ICO is being conducted on Ethereum (ERC-20).

[su_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUZWZj1pu94″]

EOS’s ownership model provides d’App developers with predictable hosting costs, requiring them only to maintain a certain percentage or level of stake, and makes it possible to create freemium applications. Furthermore, since EOS token holders will be able to rent / delegate their their share of resources to other developers, the ownership model ties the value of EOS tokens to the supply and demand of bandwidth and storage.

EOS also introduces the ability to fix bugs and rollback changes with supermajority consensus, rather than requiring a hard-fork. This is due to EOS using delegated-proof-of-stake, whereby multiple witness-nodes are nominated by the network as representatives to make certain high-level decisions more quickly, without polling the entire network. Although this makes the blockchain somewhat less decentralized, it contributes to the ability of mainstream enterprises to adopt and interact with blockchain technology.

EOS

CTO Dan Larimer is credited with inventing delegated proof-of-stake and the concept of decentralized autonomous organizations, and he founded BitShares (a decentralized asset exchange) and Steemit (a blockchain-based social media platform). Larimer and the BitShare core development team also founded Cryptonomex, the company behind Graphene, an open-source blockchain deployment platform claimed to be capable of processing over 100,000 transactions per second with an average confirmation time of less than 1 second. Some might say, however, that Larimer is a controversial figure in the blockchain community (of the snake-oil salesman variety).

CEO Brendan Blumer is also founder and CEO of ii5, whose debut product is 1group, a centralized property-listing platform for realtors in India. Before ii5, Blumer founded Okay.com (also a real estate platform, in Hong Kong), which merged with Asia Pacific Properties (APP) about a year after launching, and before that was Accounts.net, an MMORPG trading platform (in the US). Blumer’s LinkedIn profile says he relocated to Hong Kong at the age of 18 when Brock Pierce (currently Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation and Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Blockchain Capital; founder of IMI Exchange, ZAM, and IGE) acquired an operation he had started (at 15), selling virtual assets on a website he had developed. Brock Pierce is also block.one’s Chief Strategy Officer.

Another blockchain veteran involved in EOS is advisor Ian Grigg, a financial cryptographer who has been building cryptographic ledger platforms for over 20 years; inventor of the Ricardian Contract and co-inventor of Triple-Entry Accounting.

Block.one (which is based in the Cayman Islands, by the way), received the equivalent of about $185M in ETH over the first five days of its 341-day long token distribution, in exchange for 20% of the total supply of 1 billion EOS tokens. The EOS token distribution, which began on June 26, 2017, has an elongated timeframe in order to avoid the quick frenzy of a short token sale and give

EOS

people ample time to learn about the project and make informed decisions. The distribution is, however, divided into periods – 700M additional EOS tokens (70% of the total supply) have been split evenly into 350 consecutive 23-hour periods of 2M tokens each. At the end of each period, the number of EOS tokens sold will be distributed pro rata amongst all authorized purchasers, based on the total ETH contributed during that period. The remaining 100M EOS tokens (10% of total) have been reserved for block.one. A unique aspect of this ICO model is that trading of EOS tokens will have begun during the ICO, effectively ensuring that the majority of tokens will be produced and sold at market value. Once the token distribution is over, the EOS blockchain will no longer have any connection to the Ethereum network; however, it is unclear when the EOS blockchain will launch.

Crowdsale Details

Start Time 26-June-2017
End Time 3-July-2018
Total Supply 1 billion EOS.
Maximum Raise N/A
Pricing Structure 350 consecutive 23-hour periods of 2M tokens each. Tokens distributed pro rata at the end of each period. Price set by market demand.
Holding of Funds N/A

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       The EOS whitepaper is a comprehensive and detailed overview of the proposed architecture.
Team Blockchain veterans.
Location Cayman Islands
Blockchain EOS, but the ICO is on Ethereum.
Project Code Available here.
Prototype N/A
Token Rights Use of resources (bandwidth and storage) proportional to stake.
Token as Asset Via rental or sale; token value tied to supply and demand of bandwidth and storage.

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

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.4
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
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

3.8
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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally 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?

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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

4.0
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
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?

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

Whitepaper

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.6
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
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?

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

1.2
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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.8
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?

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?

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

2.4
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Exceptional presence and interest, having credibility.

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Captivating.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
Product Score:
3.4

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally 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?

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.)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
3.8

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - All issues addressed coherently.
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?

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)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
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?

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:
3.6

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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
1.2

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
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?

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?

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:
3.8

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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
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?

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?

5.0
N/A
5 - Exceptional presence and interest, having credibility.
Token Sale Score:
2.4

Use this code to share the ratings on your website