Peculium

PECULIUM is a savings platform developed to benefit from managing a superior cryptocurrency portfolio with the help of machine-learning, AI-based decision making.

About Peculium

PECULIUM is a savings platform developed specifically to benefit from managing a superior cryptocurrency portfolio with the help of machine-learning, artificial intelligence based decision making. The Peculium team aims to conjoin their field-tested ‘financial advisor’ “AIΞVE” (Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, Values, and Equilibrium) with Ethereum’s immutable smart-contracts infrastructure into one transparent savings platform.

The platform will allow monitoring and management of a variety of crypto assets at all times and will also offer varying degrees of autonomy over the asset management, ranging from completely autonomous (suitable for users and investors), to highly customizable (more suitable for professional traders, larger corporations, and brokers providing customized plans for their clients).

A word about AIΞVE – AIΞVE is an automated machine-learning financial ‘advisor’ developed by Peculium designed to learn from the analysis of the massive amounts of historical data. AIΞVE  can  allegedly read  news  articles,  books,  novels  and  other literature in eight different languages and it can also collect and analyze enormous streams  of  information  from  financial  markets, media,  and  networks  relevant  to cryptocurrency  markets  in  real-time. According to the Peculium team, the integration of the AML (Automated Machine Learning) AIΞVE in the decision-making should minimize  the  risks  and  greatly  enhances the probability of the   favorable outcomes.

According to the their published documentation, Peculium will offer 3 products: Solidus, Alterus and Singulus. Solidus, is a fund managed by an end-to-end Smart Contract (E2E) and its positions will be done by AIΞVE with minimal risk taking. Alterus, is designed specifically for companies and institutions. It will be managed via the entity’s financial department or delegated management through a broker. Singulus,  a totally autonomous product designed particularly for individuals. It is controlled by delegated management or using artificial intelligence via AIΞVE. It is very important to note that Solidus, Alterus and Singulus are  still  in  beta  phase  of  the  development. 25%  of  the  funds  received  during  the  ICOs  will  be  allocated  for development.

Moreover, there seems to be a ‘mother’ contract for Solidus, called ‘First Solidus’ or FSC. FSC was open for investors around July 2017, allowing them to use AIΞVE’s investment consulting for free. The profits generated at the end of each contract period will be distributed equally between and Peculium token holders/investors and back into the FSC. Also, this implies using AIΞVE’s investment consulting might be a chargeable service, even for investors and users of the platform.

Going over all of Peculium’s documentation and broader searches online about their planned platform, the writer of this review could not find any explanation, technical or otherwise, to what Solidus, Alterus and Singulus really are. Looking at the whitepaper, a lot of seemingly technical words are thrown around, but nothing of concrete value ensues. One could read the entire segment 5 times and still not leave with more than a fleeting ghost of a feeling of understanding what these financial ‘products’ are. Not only that; the only documentation that could be found about AIΞVE was through Peculium’s telegram group linking to an article on Medium, and that too wasn’t very convincing and mostly looked like self promotion of sorts.

 

Token Sale

Peculium (PCL) tokens will be issued and distributed through Ethereum smart-contracts.

According to the whitepaper, the total token distribution will go as follows: A  total  of 5% of  the  tokens  will  be  sold  in  a  private  sale  starting  from 1st Nov’17 until 22nd Nov’17.  The first  7  days  of  the  private  sale  will  be  exclusively for registered users. Starting 17th Dec’17, a total of 25% of tokens will be sold during initial coin offering (ICO) phase, which will last  until 24th Jan’18.  First  5  days  of the ICO will  be considered  as  the pre-ICO,  which will benefit  investors  with additional   5%  bonus  tokens.  In the continued coin offering (CCO) phase, beginning Mar’18  until  end  of  Jul’18;  a  total  of  55%  of  tokens  will  be  sold exclusively to the big investors and savings funds from all over the world, providing institutional foundation and stability for long-term success. 15%  of  the  tokens  will  be  held  by  the stakeholders (Team,  Bounties, advisors).  Unsold  tokens  will  be  burnt  at  the  end  of  each  phase.  The  proof  of burning the tokens will be made publicly available.

Peculium also offers bonus tokens based on the timeframe of purchase: Private sale backers will be given 50% bonus tokens. During Pre-ICO and ICO phases, the bonus structure will vary with time from 35% to 0%, as shown below.

The Peculium team will  consider the crowdsale to be completely successful if the crowdsale is able to raise at least an amount of €50,000,000. The minimum funding goal for the project is €7,000,000. In case of failure to raise minimum funding target, 90% of the funds will be returned back to investors within 1 week via a smart-contract. 10% will be kept to cover operational costs.

The total allocation of funds can be shown here:

 

The Peculium team will  consider the crowdsale to be completely successful if the crowdsale is able to raise at least an amount of €50,000,000. The minimum funding goal for the project is €7,000,000. In case of failure to raise minimum funding target, 90% of the funds will be returned back to investors within 1 week via a smart-contract. 10% will be kept to cover operational costs.

 

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

1.8
Product
Readiness

Is the product 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.
Appeal

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.4
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?

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.)?

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?

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

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

1.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

1.6
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.6
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?

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?

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?

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

2.6
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.0
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent 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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Appeal

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors.
Innovation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Product Score:
1.8

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?

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.)?

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, or unknown.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.4

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
1.6

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not-yet-available or questionable.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nowhere yet.
Roadmap Score:
1.6

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)?

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?

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?

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?

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:
1.6

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.6

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.0
Can you tell us a little bit more about AIEVE?

AIEVE is Peculium’s Artificial Intelligence engine. AIEVE gathers huge amounts of data which comes from many sources across the web like exchanges, blockchains, transactions, twitter, facebook, news, books, blog articles etc. Using Automated Machine Learning, AIEVE has an ability to “learn” these massive data streams and find the best strategies to serve our clients. AIEVE advises our clients on how to grow their investments in cryptocurrency markets. AIEVE has an ability to adapt the advice according to the risk parameters set by the clients. In essence, AIEVE acts as their fiduciary.

What kind of technology does it utilize? How does it work?

The strength of AIEVE lies in its AML algorithms and huge computational prowess. There are no theoretical limits to the accuracy and the adaptability of the AIEVE predictions to new sources of data, which means that by providing right data and conducting right analysis, AIEVE can predict financial trends with almost 100% certainty. By analyzing every new bit of information from targeted markets and many other relevant data sources, AIEVE adapts and optimizes its decisions in a way no other human can (or entire groups, firms or other big financial institutions for that matter). Another not so obvious strength of AIEVE is that it can take advantage of a near limitless data streams in today’s digitalized world. Which means more structured information for AIEVE to improve even further! AIEVE is currently very young and hosted on high availability servers, like Amazon. Our Objectives are to expand AIEVE’s abilities to match the theoretical limits and have a dedicated high availability and independent AI architecture.

What are the different ways in which Solidus, Alterus, and Singulus utilize AIEVE? How, and how much, does each of the products rely on AIEVE in its decision making?

The Solidus and Alterus are the contracts developed mainly to cater needs of the Institutional investors while the Singulus contract is directed towards individual investors. All of these depend on AIEVE for the advice on portfolio management. A client can choose to take advice from AIEVE or let AIEVE control the portfolio for them completely autonomously. Solidus and Alterus allow far more flexibility of parameters to set compared to Singulus because the institutional investors need greater control of the portfolio. Additionally, the Solidus and Alterus are designed to allow management of the funds by the brokers, therefore it needs to allow for “delegated” fund management of the clients by the brokers. However, at the core of the contract, all of these solutions are based on smart contract technology and are guided by the prowess of AIEVE.

Since Solidus, Alterus, and Singulus are in beta, can you tell us more about results you’ve seen with them so far?

AIEVE has the ability to predict while Solidus, Alterus, and Singulus are mere portals for the access to AIEVE’s accuracy of prediction. Our predictions have less than 5% error rate on an average. Currently, we are holding an AIEVE prediction challenge on bitcointalk where we predict the future price of BTC, ETH, LTC and DASH 24 hours in advance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2536966.0 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2536963.0. In these predictions, we always have been unbelievably accurate.

How are the profits generated by each of the three products distributed?
  • The profits generated from any of the 3 products will be directly given to the investor via predefined smart contracts. Some fee such as Fee for using the Peculium platform, AIEVE subscription, and other possible subscriptions is deducted (as predefined in the smart contract). Peculium does not take any profits from the trades that have not generated the profits or unfortunately have resulted in a loss. Therefore, if our clients win, we win. Additionally Peculium platform will share 20% of the profits generated from the subscriptions and other corporate profits with the PCL token holders every fiscal year.
How does the FSC fit into this?

FSC is a special contract developed to extend lifetime benefits to our token sale supporters. These supporters will be able to take advantage of AIEVE’s superior predictions completely free of cost for life (up to 25% of their initial contribution in the token sale). FSC will be executed during the month of July which will give our supporters a chance to Opt-In to the contract with the amount of PCL they want to invest. Once locked in the FSC contract, the investors will be able to enjoy benefits of AIEVE until they Opt-out of the contract.

Are you confident of your ability to launch the first smart contract 6 months after the ICO? What kind of development is still required?

The Artificial Intelligence of AIEVE is already in the version alpha 0.1. Our predictions are unbelievably accurate. Therefore we are confident that the development of AIEVE will undoubtedly only further improve.

During Q1 2018, Peculium we will hire SAP’s technical managers (http://www.saptoolbox.net/) enabling Peculium to be developed with the same trajectory. This will be a very condensed application development program with deliverables every 3 weeks, which will allow us to integrate bigger institutions and corporates in the CCO phase. CCO phase starts from March and ends in July 2018. This program will meet the high-tech standards from corporations and institutional investors.

We are confident that all the deliverables for smart contracts and audits will be will be ready within 6 months starting Jan 2018.

Do you have any raise-dependent milestones? What can you do with the minimal amount of €7,000,000 vs. the goal amount of €50,000,000? And why not cap it at 50mln, why cap it at €200,000,000?

The execution of our product is fairly simple as it still lets the client control most of the financial functions with advice from AIEVE. Therefore, theoretically, we can achieve the AIEVE intelligence development and growing of savings of our clients even at a € 7M cap, perhaps at a bit slower rate than expected. This is still a minimum cap. The expanse of the horizons set by the Peculium are far and beyond the trading over cryptocurrency markets.

Peculium aspires to develop a completely transparent financial system (“financial markets 2.0” if you will). This system will allow companies to create smart contracts, bonds, warranties over the blockchain technology. Using its artificial intelligence Peculium wants to develop an institutional rating system. By tapping into the employment savings, Peculium desires to bridge the gap between fiat savings and crypto-growth. The threshold of 50 million ensures full control of our technical and product roadmap while benefiting from the strongest monetary trajectory in the year 2018.

€ 200M is a theoretical cap while the real target still remains € 50M

Use this code to share the ratings on your website