Traxia

Traxia Foundation is a decentralized liquidity network which utilizes smart contracts and a blockchain to improve trust, transparency and ultimately cash liquidity in B2B trading.

About Traxia

Traxia is a platform that that allows businesses to transform invoices into smart contracts, allowing access to funding by using the organization’s accounts receivables as collateral. Unpaid invoiced are converted into tokens, which can then be traded like any cryptocurrency. Payments between buyers and sellers will still be done using fiat currency. Traxia Membership Tokens (TMT) will be required to access the ecosystem,

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

3.6
Product
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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

The main goals of Traxia are presented in the whitepaper as follows:

1. Trust and Transparency – an inherent feature of blockchain technology, further enhanced with smart contracts
2. Securitization and Standardization – the initial Traxia focus, with LiqEase developing the use case
3. Access to capital markets through decentralization

The platform will increase finance availability for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) by transforming invoices into smart contracts and tokenized assets which can be traded while the business’s accounts receivable is used as collateral.

An MVP has developed and is seemingly at an early stage of development. Much of the written content on the home page contain placeholder text (“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet…”). However, it is stated that the system is “is fully integrated to cynopsis (KYC/AML), creditsafe (company scoring), lakala (payment service provider)”. The web-interface is functional, but integration with the Ethereum blockchain is uncertain. Users are able to view status of payments and brief details regarding partners and projects.

The appeal of the platform is evident. Giving SMEs access to short-term cash liquidity would assist with the business operations of all participating organizations. Additionally, the fact that buyers and sellers still transact using fiat currency allows for the platform to be more readily adopted compared to other blockchain-related projects (since trading of the tokenized asset is independent from the transaction between the buyer and seller)

Competition includes R3 (Corda), Bolero, IBM (Hyperledger Fabric), Wave, EssDocs, Invox Finance, and other mostly Ethereum-based finance and lending solutions, however Traxia’s platform is intended to be transferred from Ethereum to Cardano.

The platform is fairly innovative , as the ability utilize an organization’s accounts receivable as collateral in exchange for short-term cash liquidity is made practical by creating digital representations of a “real trade asset” issued by buyers and sellers.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

3.4
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally disruptive.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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

TMT is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to access the Traxia ecosystem. There are two types of access: accessing the ecosystem through Issuing/Listing services and a membership fee (on a per transaction basis). It is stated on the Traxia website that “each time an Issuing Provider adds a new invoice to the system, TMT has to be purchased at an exchange to settle access fees”. In the future, Traxia will migrate from Ethereum to Cardano. However, thorough discussion as to why Cardano was chosen is fairly limited. The transfer of tokens on Ethereum to Cardano is not discussed in detail. Comparisons between Ethereum, Cardano, and other blockchain solutions are absent form the whitepaper. It is simply stated that the Traxia Foundation is “most bullish on the developments of Cardano and intend to base [their] entire solution (TMT and the Smart Contract framework) on [Cardano] technology”.

With regards to decentralization, it is stated that during the initial stages of (business) development, The Loan Warehousing Facility (provided by third-party investors such as Quark Finance) will be used to “streamline the process from the originating of the debt to the bundling and securitization” of the asset. However, at a later stage, this system will be replaced by independent banks and investors to increase decentralization of the market. The creation of a custom token is primarily for funding purposes. With regards to the level of disruption brought forth by the utilization of blockchain technology, the idea of the platform is only made practical with the use of tokenized assets. As a result, the effect of the platform on SMEs is generally disruptive. Contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is limited to projects that focus on finance/enterprise. Traxia does not introduce revolutionary technology that would provide value to the blockchain ecosystem as a whole.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.6
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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

The document begins with a fairly thorough discussion regarding the background information on trade finance. Major issues are discussed (absence of trust and cooperation between banks, limited transparency due to lack of reliable data points along the trade finance value chain, limited cash liquidity in the markets and higher spreads, and high levels of bureaucracy and paperwork). The roles of different stakeholders are also discussed and the document does a fairly good job of giving a brief overview of trade finance. Much of the content has been taken from a document produced by Deloitte, “Applying blockchain in securitization: opportunities for reinvention” and some items are not properly attributed. For example, entire paragraphs (“Trustees manage the trust entity and represent…”) and figures (flowchart describing securitization) are included in the whitepaper without adequate attribution.

Traxia’s solution is described in the main body of the document on a logistical level, rather than a technical one. Additionally, the document contains an annex that attempts to outline the technical details of the platform. However, this section simply describes the different components of the platform (stakeholders, the Decentralized Liquidity Network) as opposed to a in-depth discussion on the technology and its implementation. Smart contracts are merely mentioned throughout the document without reference to code or GitHub repositories that would provide much more depth to the technical content of the document. The business strategy is outlined in three steps, and is described fairly briefly (approximately 300 words). The business plan is presented in a qualitative manner and does not include expected time-frames. Fiscal projections and not discussed. In short, the business plan is to leverage partnerships with distributers that have existing relationships with suppliers (stage 1), educate the client base and implement a referral program along with word-of-mouth campaigns (stage 2) and reach broader market adoption by targeting global investors such as hedge funds (stage 3).

Overall, the document takes time to read due to the complexity of the solution. The document is fairly comprehensive with respect to the background information of trade finance, but Traxia’s solution from a business and technology perspective is somewhat lacking. Transparency is somewhat questionable due to the lack of publicly available content on GitHub and the lack of proper attribution for content taken from other sources, in addition to the lack of discussion regarding a comparison between different blockchain solutions and why Cardano is the most desirable.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.8
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.
Feasibility

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

An outline of the roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
* V1 (alpha) January 2018
* V1 (beta) March 2018
– includes CMS via LiqEase (Monolith API and web clients), the marketplace (built on proofsuite, working with Lykke), and the TMT token.
* V2 April 2018
– due Apr-2018 – upgraded CMS (with microservice API architecture, web and mobile clients), to be built on Cardano.
* V3 June / July 2018
– the development of “truly smart” contracts which will integrate with existing enterprise systems and workflows

The roadmap contains major milestones and is accompanied with a discussion giving further details for each version of the platform release. Specific technologies that will be used for the releases are discussed, but further details are not provided. Feasibility of the development roadmap is questionable, considering that the organization planned to release the second version of the platform on Cardano in April, yet there is no clear indication that this has been achieved.

The vision of the platform is to develop “truly smart” contracts which will integrate with existing enterprise solutions. The document gives the impression that the project has long-term potential as opposed to simply capitalizing on the hype surrounding cryptocurrency in order to generate funds. With regards to dependencies, the platform will initially rely on the Loan Warehousing Facility provided by Quark Finance. Additionally, (broker) licensing will likely be required which the Traxia Foundation states will be “obtained fairly quickly e.g. through Vanuatu or similar jurisdictions”.

The largest obstacle that the organization faces is the development of the platform (beyond an MVP). Increased functionality of the MVP, followed by a working product on the Ethereum blockchain will require significant developmental resources. Transitioning the platform to Cardano will be an additional hurdle. Current stage of development is mostly unknown due to the lack of content that is publicly available.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.6
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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

It is stated that “neither the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) nor any other federal, state, or foreign regulatory authority has approved a contribution to the Traxia Foundation or the acquisition of the Traxia Tokens”. The whitepaper includes a general legal disclaimer but does not discuss regulatory issues faced by the project with regard to services offered.

The website features a whitelist registration process with a detailed Terms & Token Purchase Agreement. Registration requires identification (passport, local ID and driver licenses accepted), and statements regarding annual income and origin of funds. However, ADA, ETH, and BTC addresses for contributions are freely available on the website. The FAQ includes a question about who can participate in the token sale, and it is stated that “In our KYC form we will ask you to READ our Disclaimer. If you agree to it you can participate in our token sale regardless of your nationality”, along with a disclaimer placing all responsibility on the participant.

It is stated that “Traxia is not a specialist in pricing debt so will be working with Creditsafe, a rating agency whose scores are recognized by major Credit Insurers such as Euler Hermes and Coface”.

TMT tokens give access to the Traxia platform, whereas the tokens derived from the tokenization of invoices are strictly tradable financial instruments.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

3.4
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

The Traxia Foundation is a NPO based in Zug, Switzerland and was founded in 2018. The technology that will be used to operate the initial version of the ecosystem is being developed by LiqEase, a contracted organization based in Shanghai and was founded in 2017. There are 8 employees listed on the LiqEase LinkedIn page. The CEO of LiqEase is also a board member of the Traxia Foundation. The C-level executives from LiqEase and are presented (along with collaborators, advisors, and investors) with bio descriptions and links to LinkedIn accounts which can be found in the following Traxia blog post: https://blog.traxia.co/the-traxia-who-is-who-110b3acd1d9f.

Lead team members LinkedIn profiles show relevant previous experience and commitment to the project. Most team members and advisors are in business/finance related positions. The CTO who “masterminds the blockchain/smart contract development (Ethereum, Solidity, Truffle, NodeJS) is also the founder and CTO of YBC Agency (IT projects). There is also a developer on the list of ‘collaborators’, and one of the ‘advisors and collaborators’ is a senior advisor at Emurgo. Notably, one of the ‘advisors’ is Managing Director, Head of Asia at R3. The CMO is also co-founder of ‘The Blockchain Marketing Agency’ in Shanghai. There is seemingly a lack of developers with blockchain-related experience.

The website states that Cardano has invested in the project through its investment arm Emurgo, which “will use Traxia’s migration from Ethereum to Cardano’s blockchain as a use-case to show other projects how it is done”.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

3.0
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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

Total supply: 1,000,000,000 TMT
1 TMT = $0.055 USD (BTC, ETH, and ADA are accepted)
Unsold tokens will be burned.

Soft cap: unspecified
Hard cap: $15.1MM USD

The hard cap has been reduced from $41.4MM USD, since loan warehousing will be provided by Quark Finance.

Token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
40% – First token sale
20% – Liquidity pool (additional token sale in 2-3 years)
20% – Team (60% locked for 12 months; 40% locked for 24 months)
10% – Treasury (locked for 2 years)
5% – Bounty (distributed over 2 years)
5% – Advisors (60% locked for 12 months; 40% locked for 24 months)

Use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
40% – Smart contact development (product development)
30% – Business development and sales (salaries and sales related expenses)
15% – Legal and compliance (company establishment, contracts, licenses)
15% – Liquidity buffer (manage uncertainty)

Overall, the funding goals are adequately justified. The organization managed to reduce the hard cap quite significantly by obtaining Quark Finance as a institutional investor. Token allocation has sufficient community involvement with vesting periods clearly outlined. Use of proceeds are described adequately without obfuscation. Media presence is somewhat mediocre, with a few thousand users (or less) on major social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and Telegram.)

Product

The main goals of Traxia are presented in the whitepaper as follows:

1. Trust and Transparency – an inherent feature of blockchain technology, further enhanced with smart contracts
2. Securitization and Standardization – the initial Traxia focus, with LiqEase developing the use case
3. Access to capital markets through decentralization

The platform will increase finance availability for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) by transforming invoices into smart contracts and tokenized assets which can be traded while the business’s accounts receivable is used as collateral.

An MVP has developed and is seemingly at an early stage of development. Much of the written content on the home page contain placeholder text (“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet…”). However, it is stated that the system is “is fully integrated to cynopsis (KYC/AML), creditsafe (company scoring), lakala (payment service provider)”. The web-interface is functional, but integration with the Ethereum blockchain is uncertain. Users are able to view status of payments and brief details regarding partners and projects.

The appeal of the platform is evident. Giving SMEs access to short-term cash liquidity would assist with the business operations of all participating organizations. Additionally, the fact that buyers and sellers still transact using fiat currency allows for the platform to be more readily adopted compared to other blockchain-related projects (since trading of the tokenized asset is independent from the transaction between the buyer and seller)

Competition includes R3 (Corda), Bolero, IBM (Hyperledger Fabric), Wave, EssDocs, Invox Finance, and other mostly Ethereum-based finance and lending solutions, however Traxia’s platform is intended to be transferred from Ethereum to Cardano.

The platform is fairly innovative , as the ability utilize an organization’s accounts receivable as collateral in exchange for short-term cash liquidity is made practical by creating digital representations of a “real trade asset” issued by buyers and sellers.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
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?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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:
3.6

Use of Blockchain

TMT is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to access the Traxia ecosystem. There are two types of access: accessing the ecosystem through Issuing/Listing services and a membership fee (on a per transaction basis). It is stated on the Traxia website that “each time an Issuing Provider adds a new invoice to the system, TMT has to be purchased at an exchange to settle access fees”. In the future, Traxia will migrate from Ethereum to Cardano. However, thorough discussion as to why Cardano was chosen is fairly limited. The transfer of tokens on Ethereum to Cardano is not discussed in detail. Comparisons between Ethereum, Cardano, and other blockchain solutions are absent form the whitepaper. It is simply stated that the Traxia Foundation is “most bullish on the developments of Cardano and intend to base [their] entire solution (TMT and the Smart Contract framework) on [Cardano] technology”.

With regards to decentralization, it is stated that during the initial stages of (business) development, The Loan Warehousing Facility (provided by third-party investors such as Quark Finance) will be used to “streamline the process from the originating of the debt to the bundling and securitization” of the asset. However, at a later stage, this system will be replaced by independent banks and investors to increase decentralization of the market. The creation of a custom token is primarily for funding purposes. With regards to the level of disruption brought forth by the utilization of blockchain technology, the idea of the platform is only made practical with the use of tokenized assets. As a result, the effect of the platform on SMEs is generally disruptive. Contribution to the blockchain ecosystem is limited to projects that focus on finance/enterprise. Traxia does not introduce revolutionary technology that would provide value to the blockchain ecosystem as a whole.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Generally disruptive.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token is essential to platform.
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:
3.4

Whitepaper

The document begins with a fairly thorough discussion regarding the background information on trade finance. Major issues are discussed (absence of trust and cooperation between banks, limited transparency due to lack of reliable data points along the trade finance value chain, limited cash liquidity in the markets and higher spreads, and high levels of bureaucracy and paperwork). The roles of different stakeholders are also discussed and the document does a fairly good job of giving a brief overview of trade finance. Much of the content has been taken from a document produced by Deloitte, “Applying blockchain in securitization: opportunities for reinvention” and some items are not properly attributed. For example, entire paragraphs (“Trustees manage the trust entity and represent…”) and figures (flowchart describing securitization) are included in the whitepaper without adequate attribution.

Traxia’s solution is described in the main body of the document on a logistical level, rather than a technical one. Additionally, the document contains an annex that attempts to outline the technical details of the platform. However, this section simply describes the different components of the platform (stakeholders, the Decentralized Liquidity Network) as opposed to a in-depth discussion on the technology and its implementation. Smart contracts are merely mentioned throughout the document without reference to code or GitHub repositories that would provide much more depth to the technical content of the document. The business strategy is outlined in three steps, and is described fairly briefly (approximately 300 words). The business plan is presented in a qualitative manner and does not include expected time-frames. Fiscal projections and not discussed. In short, the business plan is to leverage partnerships with distributers that have existing relationships with suppliers (stage 1), educate the client base and implement a referral program along with word-of-mouth campaigns (stage 2) and reach broader market adoption by targeting global investors such as hedge funds (stage 3).

Overall, the document takes time to read due to the complexity of the solution. The document is fairly comprehensive with respect to the background information of trade finance, but Traxia’s solution from a business and technology perspective is somewhat lacking. Transparency is somewhat questionable due to the lack of publicly available content on GitHub and the lack of proper attribution for content taken from other sources, in addition to the lack of discussion regarding a comparison between different blockchain solutions and why Cardano is the most desirable.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
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:
2.6

Roadmap

An outline of the roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
* V1 (alpha) January 2018
* V1 (beta) March 2018
– includes CMS via LiqEase (Monolith API and web clients), the marketplace (built on proofsuite, working with Lykke), and the TMT token.
* V2 April 2018
– due Apr-2018 – upgraded CMS (with microservice API architecture, web and mobile clients), to be built on Cardano.
* V3 June / July 2018
– the development of “truly smart” contracts which will integrate with existing enterprise systems and workflows

The roadmap contains major milestones and is accompanied with a discussion giving further details for each version of the platform release. Specific technologies that will be used for the releases are discussed, but further details are not provided. Feasibility of the development roadmap is questionable, considering that the organization planned to release the second version of the platform on Cardano in April, yet there is no clear indication that this has been achieved.

The vision of the platform is to develop “truly smart” contracts which will integrate with existing enterprise solutions. The document gives the impression that the project has long-term potential as opposed to simply capitalizing on the hype surrounding cryptocurrency in order to generate funds. With regards to dependencies, the platform will initially rely on the Loan Warehousing Facility provided by Quark Finance. Additionally, (broker) licensing will likely be required which the Traxia Foundation states will be “obtained fairly quickly e.g. through Vanuatu or similar jurisdictions”.

The largest obstacle that the organization faces is the development of the platform (beyond an MVP). Increased functionality of the MVP, followed by a working product on the Ethereum blockchain will require significant developmental resources. Transitioning the platform to Cardano will be an additional hurdle. Current stage of development is mostly unknown due to the lack of content that is publicly available.

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.
Feasibility

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?

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Imperfect but available, or using substitutes.
Current Position

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.8

Compliance

It is stated that “neither the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) nor any other federal, state, or foreign regulatory authority has approved a contribution to the Traxia Foundation or the acquisition of the Traxia Tokens”. The whitepaper includes a general legal disclaimer but does not discuss regulatory issues faced by the project with regard to services offered.

The website features a whitelist registration process with a detailed Terms & Token Purchase Agreement. Registration requires identification (passport, local ID and driver licenses accepted), and statements regarding annual income and origin of funds. However, ADA, ETH, and BTC addresses for contributions are freely available on the website. The FAQ includes a question about who can participate in the token sale, and it is stated that “In our KYC form we will ask you to READ our Disclaimer. If you agree to it you can participate in our token sale regardless of your nationality”, along with a disclaimer placing all responsibility on the participant.

It is stated that “Traxia is not a specialist in pricing debt so will be working with Creditsafe, a rating agency whose scores are recognized by major Credit Insurers such as Euler Hermes and Coface”.

TMT tokens give access to the Traxia platform, whereas the tokens derived from the tokenization of invoices are strictly tradable financial instruments.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain use cases.
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:
2.6

Company and Team

The Traxia Foundation is a NPO based in Zug, Switzerland and was founded in 2018. The technology that will be used to operate the initial version of the ecosystem is being developed by LiqEase, a contracted organization based in Shanghai and was founded in 2017. There are 8 employees listed on the LiqEase LinkedIn page. The CEO of LiqEase is also a board member of the Traxia Foundation. The C-level executives from LiqEase and are presented (along with collaborators, advisors, and investors) with bio descriptions and links to LinkedIn accounts which can be found in the following Traxia blog post: https://blog.traxia.co/the-traxia-who-is-who-110b3acd1d9f.

Lead team members LinkedIn profiles show relevant previous experience and commitment to the project. Most team members and advisors are in business/finance related positions. The CTO who “masterminds the blockchain/smart contract development (Ethereum, Solidity, Truffle, NodeJS) is also the founder and CTO of YBC Agency (IT projects). There is also a developer on the list of ‘collaborators’, and one of the ‘advisors and collaborators’ is a senior advisor at Emurgo. Notably, one of the ‘advisors’ is Managing Director, Head of Asia at R3. The CMO is also co-founder of ‘The Blockchain Marketing Agency’ in Shanghai. There is seemingly a lack of developers with blockchain-related experience.

The website states that Cardano has invested in the project through its investment arm Emurgo, which “will use Traxia’s migration from Ethereum to Cardano’s blockchain as a use-case to show other projects how it is done”.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
3.4

Token Sale

Total supply: 1,000,000,000 TMT
1 TMT = $0.055 USD (BTC, ETH, and ADA are accepted)
Unsold tokens will be burned.

Soft cap: unspecified
Hard cap: $15.1MM USD

The hard cap has been reduced from $41.4MM USD, since loan warehousing will be provided by Quark Finance.

Token distribution is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
40% – First token sale
20% – Liquidity pool (additional token sale in 2-3 years)
20% – Team (60% locked for 12 months; 40% locked for 24 months)
10% – Treasury (locked for 2 years)
5% – Bounty (distributed over 2 years)
5% – Advisors (60% locked for 12 months; 40% locked for 24 months)

Use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
40% – Smart contact development (product development)
30% – Business development and sales (salaries and sales related expenses)
15% – Legal and compliance (company establishment, contracts, licenses)
15% – Liquidity buffer (manage uncertainty)

Overall, the funding goals are adequately justified. The organization managed to reduce the hard cap quite significantly by obtaining Quark Finance as a institutional investor. Token allocation has sufficient community involvement with vesting periods clearly outlined. Use of proceeds are described adequately without obfuscation. Media presence is somewhat mediocre, with a few thousand users (or less) on major social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and Telegram.)

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

4.0
N/A
4 - Well defined and reasonable.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
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:
3.0
Are Traxia and LiqEase effectively the same organization (legal distinction only)? Can you provide more information regarding the company structure, fee distribution and revenue model (for both), governance structure, etc.?

Traxia is the Foundation with the purpose to improve access to finance for Small Medium Enterprises through the use of technology. LiqEase is the entity that is contracted to build and create the initial version from a technology and business perspective in the beginning. We believe seperating the technology company from the foundation is common practice compare: Cardano Foundation and IOHK, Ethereum Foundation and Ethereum GmbH.

The fee distribution model can be seen here.

A foundation cannot make profits but can very well cover its operational expenses as illustrated in the model above.

  • A Swiss foundation is governed by its statute as attached to the email. It has no owners and is regulated by a Swiss federal authority. It is also subject to appoint an external revision service provider which is Findea AG in the case of the Traxia Foundation.
What business partnerships does the project have or plan to develop? Can you provide more details with regard to your business strategy?

Quark: We managed to get Quark Finance as an institutional investor on our platform.

Working together with Quark and their team solves the issue a multi-sided marketplace faces and in our case, it is the supply of funds from institutional investors looking to invest in accounts receivable/payable backed assets.

From a fundraising perspective, it further allows us to reduce the hardcap due to the fact that an internal loan warehousing facility is no longer needed.

Wachsman PR: Leading PR Agency for Blockchain and Crypto topics.

Call with David Wachsman was great and he would like to support our project. Will start asap.

LHoFT: Luxembourg House of Finance / Finimmo

This initiative in Luxembourg is very active and gets direct support and endorsement from the Luxembourg Regulator and Government.

Working with the team around Antony Martin, Alex Panican will give us a head start for expanding to Europe in Q3 2018 in a compliant way.

OpenPort: Blockchain-powered trucking solutions for every supply chain.

They already have existing clients such as Nestlé, Unilever, Cargill, and others. They are looking to do a project together with us asap. Could have a huge impact in terms of going to market and an additional channel to grow and sell our services.

Creditsafe: The company is a challenger of Bureau van Dijk (a Moody’s analytics company for SMEs).

The partnership with creditsafe allows us to evaluate SMEs on behalf of the institutional investors on our platform from the very beginning.

Philip Johnson (the first person to give PayPal money and former MD Silicon Valley Bank), Greg Wolfsons (Element Group), Nimrod Lehavi (simplex), Francisco Jo (Coinhill), Richard Robinsons (serial Entrepreneur 3x IPO) are joining as advisors.

Use cases and revenue (highlight brands):

  • Porsche China – SME working for Porsche China got financing through our structure. First POC.
  • DuPont – SME working for DuPont China got financing through our structure. Revenue 8.500 RMB.

Upcoming:

  • OpenPort – Technical Discussions are ongoing with the goal to have a POC asap.
  • Cargill – Former Cargill Trade Finance Team is interested in investing 1-2 Mio USD. – Term Sheet is issued and discussed.
  • Daimler Financial, Porsche Germany, Auchan, Oney – Ongoing discussions – push further after Token Sale

 

Can you provide more details with regard to your technological development plans? Is fundraising the sole purpose of launching on Ethereum? How is development to proceed while the token is on Ethereum, and will you continue to support it once the platfrom transitions to Cardano? Also, how is the transition to be carried out for token holders?

Below you can find our most recent release notes in terms of the product development.

In general: the underlying blockchain technology is the means for the purpose to make access to finance more efficient and easily accessible for SMEs and MNCs. We started on Ethereum and will move to Cardano and will develop according to the needs and demands of our customers and it therefore really depends which underlying technology stack will have the performance to be accepted by our clients.

Fundraising is therefore a main purpose but not the sole purpose of launching on Ethereum. Cardano will be ready in Q4 2018 so it is currently not an alternative.

There are various options currently being discussed at IOHK in terms of migrating/moving from the Ethereum Chain to the Cardano Ecosystem. Interoperability will be taken care of and the details will be defined by Cardano on how to streamline this process for all parties involved including current token holders.

Can you provide more information with regard to your proof of concept? What has been achieved, and where does the project currently stand with regard to development plans?

The following is our most recent release note, the system is fully integrated to cynopsis (KYC/AML), creditsafe (company scoring), lakala (payment service provider):

[Release Version]

LiqEase frontend V1.5

LiqEase admin V1.1

[URLs]

http://liqease.mediaman.com.cn

http://liqease.mediaman.com.cn/admin/  (admin/123456)

[Test Accounts] – Or you can sign up new test account.

Seller; Seller3@123.com;123456

Buyer; Buyer3@123.com;123456

Investor; Investor@fionatest3.com; 123456

[Released Content]

  • Fix all the issues from Jean-Michel on Tower
  • Frontend – Project, add Company field + Fee info
  • Admin – Project management
  • Admin – Project payment
  • Admin – LiqEase – Administrators
  • Admin – Search
  • Admin – Dashboard
  • Admin – Setting – Add Reverse Bidding Time

[Test Notes]

  1. Please clear your cache if you tested this website previously
  2. When register new account, please use test pin code “1122”
How are smart contracts created by the platform? It sounds as though LiqEase is working on individual projects, that smart contracts are tailored individually to each case. Will there be other Providers on the platform besides LiqEase? How is the solution supposed to scale? Also, what do you mean by making the smart contracts 'truly smart' in V3?

Smart Contracts are standardized and only include information such as contract volume, currency, duration, seller and buyer information etc. the purpose is to create an immutable and distributed entry of a debt security so that central clearinghouses such as e.g. Clearstream become obsolete and the settlement time of such securities is reduced from currently 2-3 days to an hour or less.

The smart contracts will be enhanced/integrated into e.g. SWIFT and other supply chain relevant systems once the underlying technology and integrations are ready to support such use on a larger scale. That is among others meant with making smart contracts ‘smart’ > integrating the smart contract within existing business processes and systems.

Providers of debt security tokens can also be traditional factoring companies that are looking to place their assets on a more liquid marketplace.

Are there any additional blockchain and tech developers on the team?

We get the full support of emurgo and the Cardano ecosystem in terms of blockchain and tech developers. We have additional access to talent through mediaman and https://dream.ac/.

You state that you will work closely with international regulators - what kind of regulatory issues are you currently addressing and how? What kind of licensing does LiqEase have or still need to obtain to function as an Issuing and Liquidity Provider?

We streamline the debt issuing process under this framework which leads to a Standardized Security Product and most importantly a debt security that can be traded on a marketplace rather than being a liquid asset which is the case for current invoice auctioning and similar platforms.

This is how we currently address the market and are in talks with e.g. the Luxembourg House of Finance among others to be compliant. As a technology provider not handling any fiat money transfers, there will be no need for licensing in terms of providing the issuing infrastructure and technology. With Quark Finance we found a first Liquidity Provider. Depending on the jurisdiction there might be a need for a broker license operating the marketplace and such license can be obtained fairly quickly e.g. through Vanuatu or other similar jurisdictions.

Use this code to share the ratings on your website