Rhea

Rhea is launching a new options trading platform called Crypto20 which is a weighted index of the top 20 cryptocurrencies at a given time.

About Rhea

Rhea is a company that centers around an options trading platform called Rhea Crypto20 – a capitalized weighted index of the top 20 cryptocurrencies. The higher the market cap of a specific cryptocurrency, the bigger its weight is in the index.

The Crypto20 platform aims to introduce the aspects of hedging and speculation to the cryptocurrency universe, encapsulating what Rhea seems to value to be the best of both the finance world and the cryptocurrency world.

Most new investors might not understand the cryptocurrency market to its fullest potential. There are currently over 1,000 different cryptocurrencies to date, each with its on underlying differences in tech, vision, team, broader goals and more. This results in immense prerequisite knowledge of the market in the past, present, and future. As a result of said prerequisite knowledge, investors are prone to either skip investing in cryptocurrencies altogether or invest without the proper information.  Moreover, investors coming from the finance world that are used to deal with traditional markets that are well structured and covered by many indices will find themselves lost in the cryptocurrency market without the right pathing. There are several cryptocurrency indices out there (Bittwent and Crix for instance), but they are yet to be accepted as the portrayal of the entire market by the majority of investors.  The Rhea Crypto20 is Rhea’s goal to create a single index that will accurately describe the market’s direction and current position, which will draw more investors.

Crypto 20

The price of the index at a given point in time will be obtained by summing the current market caps of the constituents. Taken from the Rhea whitepaper itself is an example:

Rhea ICO Review

The price of the index at a given point in time will be obtained by summing the current market caps of the constituents. Rhea is going to rely on several pricing feeds for their formula’s calculation, the formula that calculates the index value in relation to the current market cap and the base market cap. By offering daily and hourly rebalancing, investors will receive a more accurate tool for tracking and speculating in cryptocurrencies.

Rhea Token

The Rhea token is ERC-20 compliant meaning it will run on the Ethereum blockchain, and will require ‘gas’ for transactions. Rhea tokens are the means by which options trading will be executed on the platform, Cryptofund investments will be made and the dividend will be paid out. The maximum supply of Rhea will never be more than 50 million tokens. Its price will be pegged at 0.001 ETH, with discounts available for different time periods. The Rhea token will be used to buy and sell options on the platform or provide market liquidity for extra return.

There are 3 benefits for holding a Rhea token:

  1. Options trading on the Crypto20 platform.
  2. Dividend payment that will derive from transaction fees on the Crypto20 platform. Depending on the tier reached in a document called “Dividend Incentive Scheme” in Rhea’s whitepaper, a pre-set percentage of the collected fees will be distributed among token holders once every 3 months, proportional to the amount each token holder holds.
  3. Cryptofund investing – if the ICO is successful, the Rhea platform will feature a cryptocurrency hedge fund called the Rhea Cryptofund.

As previously mentioned, the Rhea token supply will be 50 million tokens at most, 85% of which will be offered in the ICO round. The remaining 15% will be used for providing liquidity services within the platform and long-term reserve. The founding team will not retain tokens.  In order to ensure fair dealing, any tokens that remain uncommitted during the offering period will be burned before the token distribution period. This will reduce the total supply of Rhea tokens while not affecting the amount that contributors will receive after the dissemination period. Rhea considers the ICO as a success when 5.5 million RHT (Or 12.5% of the maximum supply) are sold to investors. Rhea refers to it as the minimum liquidity threshold to efficiently operate the trading platform.

The Cryptofund is a hedge fund focused on investing in cryptocurrencies with a long-term perspective. The launch of the fund is greatly dependent on the success of the ICO (described in the milestone map below). If a 100% is raised, it will launch shortly after the Rhea platform. Anything below tier VII  would delay the launch.

Rhea ICO Review

The Cryptofund will be long-term oriented, and will have a relative return objective which is to outperform the Crypto20 Index itself. A 1.5% management fee charged on assets under management, and a 10% incentive fee which will be calculated on the net gains of management fees, will be applied. Investors will also receive payments in the form of dividends. There will be a lock-up period of 3 months, and Rhea claims they will publish short weekly updates on the hedge fund and 3-month full reports.

Rhea is a company under Omega Crypto Assets Ltd., which was formed by Georgi Kirilov and Detelin Sertov. Not much is known about Omega Crypto Assets Ltd. and there isn’t much information about it online.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.6
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.

Product

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.8
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.

Use of Blockchain

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.0
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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
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

2.6
Roadmap
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.

Roadmap

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.0
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?

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

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - No registered company yet.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

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

Company and Team

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and 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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Non-existent, or leaving a bad impression.

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partial, a novel approach or aspect.
Product Score:
2.6

Use of Blockchain

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Potentially 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Interesting.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.8

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
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:
3.0

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No concrete plans or milestones.
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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Roadmap Score:
2.6

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?

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:
1.0

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

1.0
N/A
1 - No registered company yet.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
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?

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Well suited to needs and 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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Non-existent, or leaving a bad impression.
Token Sale Score:
2.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website