• UTRUST

    2.37
  • 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.

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?

Team

Crowdsale Details

Project Highlights

Ratings

Product

View Breakdown
Readiness

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

1
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Appeal

Does this solution have a distinct edge?

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

Is it mass market or niche?

5
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
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation and IP

Is there (patentable) innovation and intellectual property?

2
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Use of Blockchain

View Breakdown
Blockchain Development

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

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

Is it safeguarded against misuse and corruption?

2
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
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
System Decentralization (besides token)

Does the token provide holders with value other than as an investment?

1
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

Does the solution contribute to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Whitepaper

View Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

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

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

3
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

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

1
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Roadmap

View Breakdown
Concreteness

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

2
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasiblity

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

3
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

3
N/A
3 - A trend with potential.
Dependencies (other services or capabilities required)

Does it seem as though a lot of know-how and experience went into the development plan?

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

Is the project currently sufficiently far along in its development plan (relative to its vision and plans)?

2
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Compliance

View Breakdown
Token Utility (intrinsic value through usage)

Is there a concrete business plan (vs. market descriptions, general sentiments, and fluff)?

2
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable financial instrument)

Is the business model realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

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

Are the solution's revenue streams, profit mechanisms, key KPIs, etc. clear and easy enough to understand?

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

Is the project raising an amount of money that makes sense given what it needs to reach profitability?

3
N/A
3 - Limited to blanket standard.
Legal Review or Agreement

Is it safe from legal, moral or investor abuse?

2
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Company and Team

View Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

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

2
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
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
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

What is the level of presence, added value, and commitment of the advisory board?

3
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Are there enough sufficiently experienced blockchain architects and developers on the team?

3
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Token Sale

View Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

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

2
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonably enough to carry out the majority of the development plan? Are there raise amount dependent milestones?

2
N/A
2 - Only loosely related to plans.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3
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
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the ICO well planned in terms of time, phases and scenarios?

3
N/A
3 - Some presence, lukewarm reception.

Most Read Reviews