- The idea is technically hard and may face up to obstacles in implementation for global Internet
- non-public development and there is no way to track the progress
- too much funds attracted (also, gossips indicate even more funds contributed, up to 130 M USD)
- Strong competitors
- Untransparent activity, so that it is hard to track the progress of the development
- Clients may pay for storage with ETH, so the native token may be useless
- Too much funds raising, according to gossips
- Unpublic way of raising funds
- Competition with Ripple
- Highly centralized blockchain product
- The team of executives with no details on developers (or colsultants)
- Fiat backed is reserved on the J.P. Morgan accounts
- The project does not align with the trend in the stablecoin field
- Stong competitors with more advanced technologies
- Not community-friendly focus on preventing anonymity and working closely with government authorities
- strong focus on monetary research, but not the development
- algorithms are focused on fiat collateral management - the idea widely hated in the crypto community as it is destined to be tied to the human factor
- no additional rounds are expected
- too much funds attracted for such a weak technology stack. The budget seems to be skewed to salaries, that may be considered as a cash-burn machine.
- The product may become niche on market with the scalability obstacles
- Free centralized services may be more user-friendly for users
- unclear business plan
- the service may lose the competition with free centralized services, being non-free and slower
- the roadmap is unavailable
- it is unclear who will develop the project, and who will just support
- unclear adoptability on platforms with free authentication.
- unclear token specification
- no financial metrics available
- it is unclear, whether Binance participate in equity or not
- The project enters a practically monopolized market.
- ICANN is the only way to create a top-level domain right now. The entire market belongs to this organization.
- For wide distribution, the project needs implementation in large corporations and obtaining legal status in various jurisdictions.
- The team consists only of developers, no business representatives.
- The central organization does not exist.
- The legal component of the project is not clear.
- It is not clear whether large corporations and organizations will agree to move to the auction system.
- It is difficult to predict how such a technology will be taken by governments and ICANN, created by the US government.
- Legal issues are not covered. The project could face pressure or prohibition from centralized bodies such as ICANN and governments of different countries.
- $ 136 million of initial capitalization, which may lead to a strong fall in prices at the initial stage, in case of early listing.
- Experimental distribution system. It may turn out to be a strong point of the project or a trap for the project because it is very difficult to imagine how the network will be managed.
- The difficult idea for the market
- Politics risk due to the founder's manifesto
- Idealistic motives behind the project's structure and goals
- The founder background and vision may push away some partnerships and prevent the adoption
- The role of tokens is still not finalized
- The project is not going to accept additional funds
None of current DEXs have solved the main technical problem – low speed and liquidity.
The other problem is advantages of larges exchanges, which have huge number of users and it is easier for them to create a decentralized network.
In addition, there is a big law risk – SEC has not approved current DEXs, nut USA is the biggest market for such platforms. The situation is that the first good project is going to win the competition and capture the market.
Now Ferrum is developing two main products – DEX and wallet. Both of the products have many other already existing analogues.
There are 8 people and 5 advisors. Half of a team are from investment funds and the other half has some technical background. There is one important moment – most of the founders haven’t changed their main workplace in LinkedIn.
Ferrum Network has strategic partners - TLG Ventures, KOSMOS, Token Research Group. Some of their team members represent these funds.
Ferrum’s business and token’s cost fully depend on the number of users. During the communication with the team, they have mentioned that their main market is USA, but it is still big legal risk with American jurisdiction. In addition, business is built on cryptocurrency market and if it is going to fail this project will be unclaimed.
- The designed network see significant obstacles from the telecom industry, not prepared for an effective maintenance of such industries
- Tough competition in the blockchain industry
- No prototype available
- Token functions are not described in details
- No financial information available yet
- "Network effect" entry barrier
- The new OS may add more complexity to the blockchain infrastructure
- Uncertain need globally in the solution
- Lack of experienced staff from well-known companies
- Uncertain activity of users in vouching
- No financial information available
- Tough competition on the market of scalable blockchains
- Edge on competitors is not clear due to the lack of technology described
- No prototype
- No roadmap
- Lack of details in the technology description
- Unexperienced team with doubtful achievements
- No exceptional token functions (the traditional model is used)
- Unclear use-of-proceeds plan with no significant adjustments
- High token pool capitalization for the project with no prototype
The large corporation highly dominates AI market.
Access to large amounts of data is crucial for development AI.
No prove of such AI conception in any other sources.
It is easy to create MVP, but almost impossible to develop industrial implication.
Team does not have blockchain and AI background.
Not clear role of tokens.
Blockchain does not create additional value.
The project is substantially overvalued.
A high competition on IoT market.
Integration with an exsisting IoT is the most important.
The most part of the current team has joined in Dec 2017 - Jan 2018.
There are 94 employees in Helium Inc. and Helium System Inc. The connection between companies is unclear.
Gateways will slow down the network deployment.
No financial information has been announced.
• Strong competition from other cloud computing blockchain projects
• Not significant edge on competitors
• Amino will release the product after competitors
• Testnet is about to be launched only in Q1 2020
• No prototype available yet
• The team appears to be too academic and suffers from the lack of experienced business leaders
• Three-layer node architecture may turn too complicated and ineffective
• Financial information is not available
- High competition in the field of scalable blockchains. Solana is relatively late in the game with quite a few projects launching their mainnets in the next few months
- High competition in the field of scalable blockchains. Solana is relatively late in the game with quite a few projects launching their mainnets in the next few months
- Roadmap to scaling and adoption is not yet clear
- No major partnership announcements yet
- Lack of business substance (e.g. potential use cases) and a clear list of features in the current whitepaper.
- Currently, the token details have not yet been publicly released.
- Tokens will be distributed in Q1 2019, which means investors’ funds will be locked for quite a while.
• Tough competition and lots of projects combining cloud computing and blockchain
• Weak hype around the project that may be a signal of poor marketing activity - the risk of future obstacles in promotion
• No prototype available
• Lack of legal and marketing specialists
• Users do not have much motivation to hold tokens for a long-term period
• High total token pool valuation
- High competition in the field of scalable blockchains. MANX is relatively late in the game with quite a few projects launching their mainnets in the next few months
- After the growth of the throughput of the largest cryptocurrencies (sharding, plasma and other technologies) the attention to the later-introduced scalable blockchains may fall.
- Currently, the quantum computers are far from adoption so the core product of MANX might not be demanded by the market.
- Currently, the project is on a concept stage. The Testnet is only expected in March 2019.
- The public chain launch is only expected in May 2021.
- The experience of some of the team members cannot be validated.
- The team is scattered around USA, Canada, and China.
- The token value added is unclear.
- Vesting policy has not been revealed yet.
- The company valuation at $100M seems too high.
- The use of proceeds is not given.
Tough competition among other cloud computing projects
The product is still uncertain due to not clear description and lack of detail
No whitepaper and roadmap published yet
Team members resposibilities are uncertain
Lack of blockchain, legal and marketing experience in the team
Token functions are not clear now
No financial information available now
Huge uncertainty regarding a weight of mined coins
• Fierce competition from other blockchains and projects solving the similar problem
• No prototype available
• Unclear specifications of TPS
• Jura aims to develop the product too fast having nothing for now, so the roadmap is likely to be a subject of change
• The doubtful issue regarding mfun.network
• Lack of marketing and legal specialists
• Advisors are not disclosed
• Poor token functions
• Early investors are given a bonus up to 60% with 40% of tokens with no lockup
• Too high token pool capitalization both for seed and public investors, considering no prototype available
• The project is focused on Ethereum blockchain only that we consider to be risky
• Lack of strong business logic in describing the value proposition
• Whitepaper is not released
• Value proposition is questionable
• Lack of marketing, business and blockchain specialist
• The token functions are not clear now, and it is questionable whether the project needs this token
• Monetization model in unclear
• Financial metrics are not released yet
• Fierce competition from other blockchains
• The strategy has a lack of focus and tries to attract as many groups of users as possible
• Projects with stable coins are failing on the market and usually require too much trust
• No prototype available
• The team promises too high TPS rates – 8M
• Too complicated system with lots of modules to be developed
• Too fast roadmap for such a development process
• The team does not manage the ICO process by itself and engage Token Market
• Unclear monetization model
• Unknown terms for early investors
• Too high token pool capitalization considering no prototype available
• 15% of funds raised are dedicated to covering ICO campaign, that is too much
Somewhat related competitors, such as Etherscan and Blockseer have large audience and may implement the tools of TxHash.
Testnet is expected only in Q2 2019.
Now There are just 3 people working in the team. The whole team size is unclear. Team members are not strong, "all star" experts in software development or cryptography. There are no specialists with deep expertise in blockchain/distributed systems/cryptography.
In our opinion, the event tracking protocol valuation of $37.5M looks overvalued. It is unclear what kind of a vesting scheme will be used for team bonus. The token release timeframe is unclear.
The The competing projects - SONM, Golem, and iExec have been on the market for a while now and had "first-mover" advantage.
The GitHub page of the project has only one repository which is empty. GitHub was only created in late April. The domain was only bought at the end of April, the twitter was created around the same time. MVP is not available.
The CEO does not have a strong track record in cloud computing, AI, or blockchain. The CTO did not work at AWS, as claimed on the company's website. The experience of 2 out of 6 software developers prior to joining DeepCloud cannot be validated. The Blockchain developer is not employed at DeepCloud on full-time and additionally works on a freelance platform (Toptal) and at XSN-Core. The team is scattered across the world and different time zones. The team members are located in Singapore, San Francisco, Egypt, Ukraine, Netherlands, Florida, and Mexico. The team does not have full-time blockchain experts. There are no strong blockchain advisors and partners. The Core team members do not have strong entrepreneurial experience prior to joining DeepCloud AI.
Unit economics is poorly described.
There is no information about the team and advisors tokens lockup schemes. The competing projects - SONM, Golem, and iExec have been on the market for a while now and had "first-mover" advantage. The team aims to open two offices: one in Singapore and one in San Francisco. The reasoning for this strategy is unclear. There is no information about lockup schemes for early investors' bonus tokens.
NNS developrs the same features for NEO Exchange. Ethereum ENS - a somewhat similar project - was launched a year ago and did not become widely popular since then.
The process of integration of existing chains into Blockchain Communication Protocol may be complex and lengthy. Currently, the Beta version is not available. The product has been in development only for 3 months, according to GitHub. The comparable technology Ethereum ENS was launched a year ago but did not gain significant customer base and was barely integrated into cryptoexchanges.
There are no marketing specialists in the team. The team is not concentrated in one place and is spread around Europe and the USA.
The exact fee size for Blockchain Name Service has not yet been disclosed and is subject to change.
The company valuation after reaching ICO Hardcap will be around 39M EUR (45M USD). This figure seems high if compared with NNS, which aimed to raise 3M USD. The given funds allocation is not detailed and gives only high-level distribution.
ru
