Fluence

Fluence is a blockchain-based data storage platform that allows for decentralized storage and management of encrypted structured data.

About Fluence

Fluence is a blockchain-based data storage platform that allows for decentralized storage and management of encrypted structured data. The platform is based on storing data without centralized servers, but instead spread across users’ private storage space in an encrypted format. The company incentivizes this sharing of space by compensating users who provide storage to the system with tokens, allowing anyone with some extra storage space to earn money. Fluence provides traditional database features like querying and filtering data, but is based on blockchain technology and a peer-to-peer network of users.

FluenceWhen users rent storage space to the network, their “node” becomes part of a cluster of nodes responsible for a certain dataset. Each cluster of nodes maintains its own “cluster blockchain” for recording internal operations, allowing the platform to avoid the lagging and large block sizes that would come with running one large blockchain for all nodes. By decentralizing data storage, the company hopes to almost eliminate leaks, guarantee maximum uptime, and eliminate the possibility of data regulation. The company’s use of currently unused storage space provided by users is also expected to bring down the cost of storage.

Due to the decentralized nature of Fluence, the platform guarantees a maximum uptime and no possibility for data regulation. Fluence aims to support both the cryptocurrency community and traditional industries such as the sharing of medical data with clinics or researchers and financial data with banks or insurance companies. Unlike projects such as Storj or Sia, Fluence is designed for storage and sharing of structured data, rather than files.

Fluence uses two types of tokens: tradable and functional tokens. The company’s FLU tokens represent shares in Fluence and can be traded on stock exchanges or transferred. FLU is issued on the Ethereum blockchain and has a limited allocation of 100,000,000. Within the Fluence system, the Fluence Functional token (FFT) is used to maintain operations, mainly as a reward for nodes for providing storage and performing database operations. FFT is non-transferable and will have its value managed to always be worth about $1 USD. Fluence plans to make money by taking a 0.5% commission for each operation performed within the system.

Fluence

Fluence.ai has a clear business and technical model, but is still working on their proof of concept. There is significant need for blockchain-based storage, but other companies are already working in this field, including Storj, Sia, and Filecoin, which raised $250 million in their August 2017 ICO. Due to SEC regulations, US residents cannot participate in Fluence’s pre-ICO or main ICO.

Team

Fluence is headed by CEO Evgeny Ponomarev and CTO Dmitry Kurinsiky. Ponomarev built the 2GIS Dialer mobile app that at one point processed more than 65 million calls per month, and is in charge of project management for the CodeFest developers conference every year (1,500+ attendees/year). He claims he first mined Bitcoin in 2011 on a CPU. Ponomarev has a BA in Math, and worked a number of jobs as a Product Manager. CTO Dmitry Kurinskiy is a software engineer with over 13 years of experience in previous roles including CTO at tech consulting firm Taktika, CTO at delivery startup Passenger.me, and Lead Software Engineer at shopping list startup Whisk. According to the company’s business white paper, his interests lie in distributed systems, functional programming, and stream processing. The two co-founders both studied at Novosibirsk State University between 2005 and 2009, which may be where they met. The company’s technical advisors include Alexander Demidko (Data Platform Engineer at Stitch Fix and former Lead Software Engineer at Metamarkets), Michael Egorov (CTO at NuCypher), and Nhan Phan (VP Engineering at Metamarkets).

Crowdsale Details

Token Sale Dates Presale: 14-August to 4-September..

ICO: Q4 2017

Total Supply 100,000,000 FLU tokens in total. 51% are available for sale (6% during pre-sale and 45% in the ICO, if the pre-sale max cap is not reached all unsold tokens will be burnt). 20% will be held in reserve, 20% will go to Fluence team members, and 9% will go towards an ecosystem fund. Pre-ICO sales are done in FPT tokens, which will be converted to tradable FLU tokens after the main crowdsale.
Raise Limits Pre-ICO cap is 2000-4000 ETH, ICO cap is undecided
Pricing Structure During presale: 1 ETH= 1500-3000 FPT depending on investment size

During ICO: 1 ETH =  750 FLU

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07gyODhPstQNzFoZHBoVFdyMzA/view

Clear technical explanation of the Fluence system and concise presentation of business, tech, and ecosystem design.

Team Strong technical backgrounds with a history of interest in blockchain, but basically a two-man operation.
Location Russia
Blockchain Ethereum
Project Code N/A
Prototype None
Token Rights FLU tokens are tradable and aim to represent Fluence network liquidity. The non-transferrable Fluence Functional Token (FFT), which will be kept at a value of approximately $1, maintains operations within the Fluence network by giving a reward for providing the nodes that offer the storage and database operations the network depends on.

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

Interested in deeper analysis – Fluence?

3.4
Product

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?

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.
4.4
Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain

Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
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?

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.)?

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.
4.2
Whitepaper

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
3.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

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.
2.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully 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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
3.0
Company and Team

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

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)?

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?

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?

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

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?

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:
3.4

Use of Blockchain

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
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?

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.)?

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:
4.4

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?

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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Whitepaper Score:
4.2

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
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?

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.
Roadmap Score:
3.2

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)?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully 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?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
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:
2.0

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
3.0

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.8

Use this code to share the ratings on your website