NAGA

Naga plans to create a system dedicated to social trading and investing in financial instruments, virtual goods & cryptocurrencies.

About NAGA

The Naga Group is a young but established fintech company and the parent company of SwipeStox, a social network app for trading in forex, CFDs, ETFs, futures, and cryptocurrencies, operating since June 2016. Naga is now venturing further into cryptocurrencies by developing an exchange for trading in virtual goods as well as financial assets, and launching its own cryptocurrency. With this ICO, Naga hopes to raise the funds to develop their exchange and ecosystem, as well as a stock trading academy with nationally certified programs. The targeted audience includes gamers, the underbanked, and anyone with a brokerage account.

SwipeStox is an existing Tinder-like trading platform, as the company calls it, where you see a trader’s profile and their last trade, and swipe left or right to dismiss or copy the trade in real time. SwipeStox is intended to be a social trading platform where users can share their knowledge and expertise, and get instantly rewarded when someone copies a trade they made. Users can also follow or subscribe to other users’ activity streams, and comment on activities. The platform also provides an artificial intelligence advisor which tracks trades and can perform trades on behalf of users, allowing them to take advantage of potentially profitable trades with interactive risk calculations.  

With Switex, Naga plans to disrupt the gaming industry by building a platform where developers and gamers can buy and sell in-game items or currencies with NGC tokens to replace the black and grey markets that exist today. From their whitepaper it can be concluded that Switex is in alpha phase and that partnerships have been formed with several leading industry players, among them a DAX30 company. Blockchain technology is used to prevent misuse and fraud when trading virtual items on the platform allowing users to transfer items in and out of games. Switex will use its own private artificial currency – Switex Coins – to enable a legal and safe way to trade in virtual goods.

Then there is also the Naga Academy. Naga has partnered with a leading Cypriot educational institution with over 20 years of experience delivering recognized online UK bachelor and master degrees in business management, accounting, law, and more, as well as offline seminars and workshops. The Naga Academy itself will not offer bachelor and master degrees; the degrees that can be earned within the academy are described as ranging from micro degree to a PhD, but this is not clarified further. It is stated that these fall within EU regulations and thus are internationally acknowledged. The academy is scheduled for launch in Q1 of 2018.

Naga’s ERC-20 NGC token and the the Naga Wallet will unite Naga’s major platforms and enable an ecosystem for the social trading of cryptocurrencies, virtual goods, and stocks. Transfer of tokens will be enabled through the Naga Wallet from where users will be able to deposit into Switex, SwipeStox, and the Naga Academy, for all investments, purchases and sales.

Naga’s exchange is, as they call it, a decentralized third party exchange, but a better word would be borderless – they don’t expand on how decentralized it currently is, or will become beyond the token.

It is stated that on SwipeStox, the commission or fee on each trade will be half of what it would be if conducting the trade via a USD account, and that there will be cashback bonuses, of about 0.01% to 0.05% per trade (expected). On the Switex platform, NGC users will be entitled to slightly smaller purchase fees (9% as opposed to 10%), and a 5% bonus (i.e. a better exchange rate) when buying Switex coins with NGC rather than fiat. NGC holders on SwipeStox will benefit from higher ranking and greater visibility, and access to educational material, closed groups, and promotional activities not open to fiat users. Switex will offer token holders access to premium content and the newest games or in-game-items. Furthermore, token holders will benefit from discounted and/or free access to Academy courses and online degrees. Naga also plans to release a debit card to enable users to spend their NGC in stores worldwide but no partnerships with retailers have been confirmed.

The whitepaper also mentions that every SwipeStox transaction and every exchange of NGCs for Switex Coins will contribute to the Naga Coin Loyalty Fund (presumably from the fees, but this is not clear), and that these accumulated funds will then be distributed to ‘qualified’ NGC token holders, based on the number of tokens they hold. The company also plans to operate a Donation Fund via which charity projects (assessed by a dedicated team and including NGOs only) will be proposed and voted on quarterly.

The Naga Group is considered to be one of the hottest fintech companies in Germany. Founded in 2015, the company raised over $15m in venture capital from investors including the European bank Hauck & Aufhaeuser and the Chinese investment conglomerate FOSUN, and has already IPO’d and is listed on the German stock exchange with a market cap of about €275M (trading at ~400% above issue price). The Group states that it generates millions of EUR in yearly revenues, billions of EUR in trading volume, and several hundred thousand transactions per month. The Group mentions Fosun as its largest shareholder and primary connection to Asian based brokerage companies, with developments to be publicly announced in 2018.

While the company employs more than 120 people, the team associated with the project is comprised of 25, and includes only 3 developers – whether that is sufficient for the large project and future visions they want to implement is questionable. The team’s blockchain expert has a masters degree in science at a russian academy, but more specific information is not available, and it is not clear what direct experience he has with blockchain technology and coding. The team does seem to have the experience necessary to making the project a success, with experienced and talented business developers, strategists and marketers, plenty of advisors to guide them one of them being Roger Ver, and plenty of partnerships – though most of these are undisclosed at this point.

The company promises to update participants of the crowdsale annually on how the funds are used and how much is held by them in both crypto and fiat currencies. They also expand on risk factors associated with participating in the ICO such as the limitations of the smart contract, emphasizing the experimental nature of these contracts. Other risks explained are in regard to regulatory scrutiny and the possibility of token holders needing to pay taxes over their holdings. The company may find itself in a position where it needs to share sensitive information with governments and other third party regulators. If the ICO does not meet its targets there is no refund option – the team will adjust the roadmap according to the raised funds though no specifications on this can be found within the whitepaper. It is recommended to read their disclaimer to be aware of all the terms and conditions that are associated with purchasing NGC.

With SwipeStox already launched in September 2017 the next piece of the infrastructure is the Naga Wallet which is scheduled for release on the 1st of April and on the first of May the NGC token will be integrated as the base currency of SwipeStox. Switex is not launched yet and when it will be launched isn’t made clear on the roadmap. For what it is worth you can subscribe to the Switex Newsletter to stay informed.

 

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.2
Product
Readiness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully operational.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.0
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.8
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

3.4
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
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?

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

3.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Company and Team

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.2
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
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

Product

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully operational.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

3.0
N/A
3 - Has growth potential.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
3.2

Use of Blockchain

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.0

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Difficult, tech / marketing babble.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Whitepaper Score:
2.8

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Past a few hurdles.
Roadmap Score:
3.4

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
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?

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:
2.4

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
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:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website