UTRUST

UTRUST is a ground-breaking payment platform that empowers buyers to pay with their favorite cryptocurrencies while providing the best consumer protection in the market.

About UTRUST

UTRUST plans to be a payment processing platform that allows buyers to pay with cryptocurrencies and sellers to receive payment in fiat currency, while acting as a trusted mediator and purchase protection provider. Utrust aims to solve the main issues holding back the widespread use of cryptocurrencies as payment for actual, real-world goods and services – namely, that buyers have come to expect a robust consumer protection mechanism (i.e., refunds), while sellers are wary of accepting cryptocurrencies due to their volatility. Essentially, Utrust will be a transactional payment API that combines the speed and security of crypto payments with the protection and safety of traditional payment systems.

[su_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGAaaV-aVGs”]

Utrust ICO Review

For buyers, Utrust will mitigate risk by providing transaction validation as well as mediation and arbitration, empowering users to open and escalate disputes, and obtain refunds, if things go wrong with a purchase. For sellers, Utrust will provide a transparent conversion preview of rates with just-in-time crypto-to-fiat conversion at the best market rates, ensuring receipt of the requested amount regardless of volatility. Utrust’s service fees will be 1% of the transaction amount.

 

Utrust ICO Review

When a buyer purchases a listed item, the payment amount will be sent to the Utrust platform, converted to fiat, and held in escrow for a duration depending on the merchant’s performance history. If something goes wrong with a purchase, the buyer can open a dispute, in which case the buyer and seller will first enter a chat to try to resolve the issue among themselves. If they do not come to terms within 7 days, the buyer will have the option to escalate the dispute, in which case a Utrust operator will join the chat and serve as mediator and arbitrator with a final say on the disputed outcome – either issuing a refund to the buyer or releasing the funds to the seller. If the merchant loses the dispute, a corresponding performance downgrade will occur, which will translate to a longer hold period. Proceeding with an escalation will incur a fee of 2% over the amount in hold if a buyer refund is issued.

 

 

Utrust ICO Review

Utrust will be launching a pre-ICO of $1.5 million on August 28th, followed by a 7-rounds ICO beginning in September, with the goal of obtaining a funding total of $50 million. The Utrust token will act as an investment stake as well as a transactional token for buying products and services on the platform. Utrust tokens will be accepted as payment on the platform alongside other cryptocurrencies, with the advantage of requiring no conversion fees. For every transaction performed on the platform (in any cryptocurrency), a small percentage of the amount in Utrust tokens will be burned, so as to reduce supply and increase demand, thus driving up the Utrust token value for holders. The amount of Utrust tokens is projected to be reduced from the initial 1 billion to a minimum cap of 100 million, at a rate no faster than 50 million a year, dynamically adjusted by the platform’s analytics engine.

Unfortunately, Utrust does not cover any implementation details in its whitepaper, and in fact does not yet have a working prototype or MVP, which is planned to be developed and made available in 2018, following its ICO.

Crowdsale Details

Token Sale Dates Pre-ICO: set to open on 28-August,

ICO opening round in September (TBD).

Total Supply 1,000,000,000 (1 billion)

5% will be sold in the presale, and another 10% in each of the 7 ICO rounds.

Another 10% will be retained by Utrust and diluted by 2% per year during the next 5 years, while 5% will be allocated to marketing and bounties. 10% have already been pre-allocated to private investors.

Raise Limits $50 million.
Pricing Structure Pre-ICO: $0.03 (three cents) per token.

ICO Rounds will start at $0.04 (four cents) per token and increase by an average amount of $0.01 (1 cent) per round.

Project Highlights

Technical White Paper       https://utrust.io/#whitepaper

More of a declaration of intent.

Team The website team page lists 25 team members, most of them with LinkedIn profile links. Utrust is headed by CEO Nuno Correia, CIO Filipe Castro, CTO Artur Goulão, and CPO Roberto Machado, along with Head of Engineering Luís Ferreira, Head of Operations Laura Esteves, Head of Design João Ferreira, and Head of Sales & Partners Nick Olender. There are seven software engineers and a product designer on the team. Most of the team members appear to be employees at Subvisual, a company co-founded and headed by Machado and Ferreira. Utrust’s nine advisors include SafeCloud co-founders Francisco Maia, Francisco Cruz, and João Paulo.
Location Switzerland
Blockchain Ethereum
Project Code N/A
Prototype N/A
Token Rights Payment on the platform without conversion fees.

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

Interested in deeper analysis – Utrust?

[su_button url=”/contact-us/” target=”blank” size=”8″ center=”yes”]Contact Us[/su_button]
Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
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

1.8
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?

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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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

2.4
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?

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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?

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

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?

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

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.2
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

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?

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

2.6
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

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?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.4

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?

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.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
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:
1.8

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?

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.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
2.4

Roadmap

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

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?

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:
2.6

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
2.2

Company and Team

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
Background of Lead Team Members

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

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?

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:
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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?

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?

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:
2.6

Use this code to share the ratings on your website