- Competition in the sphere of scalable dApp-protocols is more severe than in others, so it has to be taken into consideration.
- The existing blockchains, though not as scalable as AERGO might become, still have first-mover advantage and might be better off if they introduce scalability features, such as Lightning network, Sharding, Plasma, State Channels.
- Technical paper and smart contract links are missing.
- There is no link to Github.
- The team is scattered across different time zones. They are located in London, South Korea, Hong Kong, and New York.
- Several team members are still employed at Blocko, according to their LinkedIn pages.
- AERGO will sell only 30% of the tokens. Therefore, most of the tokens will be centralized in the project.
- The high competition in the filed os decentralized storage platforms might be a downside for Lightstreams development.
- There is no link to GitHub to validate the product development.
- The testnet is only expected in Q1 2019. By then, the competing projects will already have their mainnets in operation for a while.
- None of the team members gives the links to their LinkedIn profiles.
- Some of the team members do not claim Lambda as a workplace on LinkedIn.
- There are no people with blockchain experience.
- Lambda will use basic Proof of Work consensus mechanism.
-
- The project valuation of $80M seems too high.
- Lambda will sell only 30% of the tokens.
- High competition in the sphere of smart-contracts development tools.
- The most successful ICOs in this field were launched back in 2016 i.e. have early mover advantages.
- Testnet is not available yet.
- The motivation for the customers to issue tokens on Emotiq platform and not somewhere else is unclear.
- The development of a proprietary programming language - Ring - may not be adopted by communities.
- The team members are located in Moscow, Zug, Tucson, Mexico, Los Angeles, and Toronto.
- David McClain does not have any experience except Emotiq mentioned on his Linkedin page.
- Now there is not enough information available on the business model of the platform.
- Token economics is not given in a detailed manner.
- The unsold tokens will be kept in reserve by Emotiq, to be used for future funding needs.
- Post-ICO valuation will be equal to $120M which seems extremely expensive.
- There is no information on the use of proceeds.
Tough competition among blockchain and industry projects
Lack of prototype and whitepaper and early stage of the product Current roadmap version ends in July 2018, but it is to be updated
CEO is not experienced enough in management Lack of marketing and legal specialists
Token may appear to have additional functions after WP release
No financial detailed released yet
High level of competition in the field of scalable blockchains: ICON, EOS, LIsk, Ark, Lisk, Cardano, Hedera, QuarkChain, Zilliqa, Credits.
The Mainnet launch is only expected in Q2 2019. No MVP available. There is no link to GitHub. Whitepaper explains the HashNET Network in a Very Basic Way. The intended product functionality seems too broad and complex for development. The whole list of competitive advantages of Tolar Hashnet over ICON, EOS, LIsk, Ark, Lisk, Cardano, Hedera, QuarkChain, Credits, or Zilliqa is unclear
Now there are no announced partnerships. Only one board member has previous blockchain experience. Other 7 board members have background in management or finance. Not every team members' experience can be validated on LinkedIn. Only 2 out of 8 tech team members have previous blockchain experience. Plenty of the team members came from various roles at COTRUGLI Business School, not from real business.
It is unclear how many tokens will be needed to run a masternode.
Only 35% of the tokens will be available to investors. The token lockup scheme for the team (20%) and advisors (2.5%) is unclear. High hardcap ($35M) and valuation ($100M) after ICO when compared to competitors(Ziliqa - $20M, Credits - $22M). There is no information about the use of proceeds.
Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks
Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks
Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks
Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks
Currently, project decided to not verify their publishing via system of grades and risks
There are several Blockchain projects that do not have the same features as Origin Protocol but aim to create similar products and already gained public attention and raised money, such as District0x and Openbazar. District0x, which creates a network of decentralized markets and communities, has already raised 10M USD during ICO last August. The market of protocols seems to be heavily dependent on the "first-mover advantage", as the protocols will grow faster if they are unified and comply with the current solutions on the market.
The team aims to create a complex product which requires vast amount of resources. That is why the feasibility of all the proposed features is unclear. Origin Protocol will have to compete with large, established marketplaces across different industries. It is unclear if the team will be able to scale the project so that it will be possible to compete with companies like Airbnb, Fiverr or Uber. Origin aims to expand its services globally but does not focus on any particular markets. As the prices will be shown in fiat currencies but will be paid in crypto, which is way more volatile than the former one, it may lead to price differences. This can harm the customer experience. The given roadmap is not enough detailed and only highlights some of the product development stages.
The team is spread between Colorado and California.
As the platform will require participants to deposit small amounts of token before creating a new listing or user profile, it might lower the attractiveness of the platform for the early users. As the users might be penalized if they falsely challenge legitimate listings or accounts, it may also decrease the attractiveness of the platform. There is no information on how Origin Protocol will earn its money, so the commercial viability of the platform is not clear.
ru
