1. Home
  2. Analytics
  3. Investment Rating

OneLedger Rating Review

Stable

Investment Rating

Expiry date: Expired 16 Aug 2018

Based on the analysis performed and issues identified we assign OneLedger project a “Stable“ rating. We believe that without an existing MVP, and with increased business, commercial and other risks, participation in this ICO is risky for investors and only those whose risk appetite is high may wish to participate in the OneLedger public sale.

OneLedger has an ambitious, complex concept not currently existing in the market. Several competitors are developing comparable solutions, but there are differences between them regarding use cases, features and other functions. OneLedger’s platform is mainly aimed at businesses.

High growth rates for the ERP, SaaS and blockchain markets contribute to increasing demand for cross-blockchain / blockchain-to-regular network solutions.

We would like to highlight the relatively strong team working on OneLedger’s development. Most team members have experience in the development of enterprise solutions. The advisory board is satisfactory, featuring several experienced professionals including Trevor Koverko, CEO of Polymath.

However, we draw attention to the following significant risks associated with this ICO:

Absence of an MVP. At the time of this analysis (April 2018) the team has not yet released an MVP; it is expected to be released in Q1-Q2 2018 according to the project’s roadmap. Absence of an MVP clearly restricts the ability to assess team competences, product capabilities, the degree of product development and other crucial factors that investors in an ICO must consider before making any decision to invest. Once the MVP/alpha is released and the team’s progress can be assessed, this will be less of a risk.

ICO details, terms and conditions lack clarity. The smart contract code on GitHub is insufficient. The team is not transparent on its website or in the project’s whitepaper regarding some important ICO terms, e.g. start and end dates are not specified and token price is not mentioned anywhere. The terms for two presale stages were not specified (the team disclosed them in its Telegram group however). The smart contract code published on GitHub is not sufficient and does not cover significant terms for the ICO. We assess this risk as currently high, although if the team discloses the respective contract code and updates its website before the start of the public sale, the risk may be decreased at that point.

Revenue sources and project monetization are unclear. The team does not disclose the manner in which the project will be monetized, either on the project’s website or in the whitepaper. The team informs us that the project will be monetized via fees from users of the platform. However, these fees are not yet specified, and the need to support the platform and related working capital requires stable sources of revenue.

Competition and market risk. Competition is very high, and the fact that the majority of competitors mentioned have made considerable progress in the development of their products compared to OneLedger increases business and commercial risks for the OneLedger team. The team does not disclose in sufficient detail to what degree their product is compatible with existing ERP systems (given that the product is strongly aimed at enterprises); this is critical for an understanding of OneLedger’s competitive position.

The whitepaper is not comprehensive enough. Lack of specific technical details regarding crucial components and stumbling stones for the whole protocol and unclear/absent coverage of several important topics. Given that there is no MVP as yet, these factors significantly increase risks for investors.

Team composition. The team has ambitious plans in terms of product complexity and deadlines – they plan to release an MVP in Q2 2018, an alpha version and relevant API by Q3-Q4 2018 and the final platform release some time in 2019. 4 developers may not be sufficient to deliver a complex platform like this in a given timeframe.

Development risks. The team is supposed to release a final version of the platform sometime in 2019. As of April 2018, they do not yet have an MVP. Application, adoption and beta-testing/performance improvement of a product for enterprise use will definitely require significant time and effort from the team. In addition to this, several problems regarding compatibility and performance are to be solved prior to release.

Token price decrease.     Discounts during the presale and seeding, a significant portion of funding obtained during the presale and significant reserves for marketing/platform growth activities may lead to significant pressure on the token price before the platform reaches maturity.

Lack of communication from the team. Our analysts raised several questions in the official OneLedger Telegram group when performing this analysis, and 2 out 3 remained unanswered. In particular, the team did not answer questions about monetization and the purposes of the company reserve in the token distribution.

Based on the analysis performed, and taking into consideration all the risks associated with OneLedger project as of April 2018, we assign the OneLedger project a “Stable” rating. We draw attention to the fact that when MVP/alpha/beta versions of the product are released, this rating needs to be reassessed.

 

The OneLedger team is offering a protocol/ecosystem to facilitate integration of blockchain technology within enterprises, and to facilitate interoperability of different blockchains and provide ways of connecting blockchain networks to external networks via APIs. For that purpose, a mix of APIs, architecture solutions and modularization tools together with integration APIs is being developed to make the process of blockchain technology implementation and facilitation easier and more efficient for enterprises. The ecosystem token (OLT) will be used for several purposes as a utility token – fees, payments for modules and plugins created by developers and probably for staking for node holders when the system is sufficiently developed.

Website

Whitepaper

Twitter

Telegram

GitHub

LinkedIn

Medium

Reddit

 

Seeding round

Presale (private), 2 stages

ICO (public sale)

Start date

no data

no data

May 2018

End date

no data, finished

no data, finished

Not specified

Stage cap

1,000,000 USD (reached)

Stage 1: 6,000,000 USD

Stage 2: 3,000,000 USD

Total: 9,000,000 USD (reached)

5,000,000 USD

Token

OLT (ERC-20)

Token supply (for sale/total)

35 million OLT / 100 million OLT

Soft cap

4,000,000 USD

Hard cap

15,000,000 USD

Total valuation

Up to ~42,900,000 USD

Token price

No data

Stage 1: 0.41 USD

Stage 2: 0.43 USD

0.52 USD

Bonus

Yes, not specified

Presale stage 1: 25%

Presale stage 2: 20%

Not specified

Lock-ups

No data

No lock-ups

No lock-ups

Minimum investment

Individual: 50 ETH

Company: 300 ETH

Individual: 20 ETH

Company: 50 ETH

Not specified

Maximum investment

Individual: 300 ETH

Company: 1000 ETH

Individual: 50 ETH

Company: 300 ETH

Not specified

Currencies accepted

ETH, other not specified

Restricted list

USA, South Korea, Canada, China, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Vanuatu, Yemen

As mentioned, currently (April 2018) the team does not have an MVP. Project representatives say that the MVP is to be released after the public sale, thus increasing risks for potential investors.

Only limited information is available on the OneLedger official website. There is no mention of ICO start/end dates, token price, accepted currencies, applicable bonuses or other significant matters related to the ICO. We had to clarify some of these points via the official OneLedger Telegram group or look it up on external sources, which also refer to Telegram, or in personal discussions with OneLedger representatives.

Given that the ICO is to take place in May 2018, this degree of missing information on key ICO parameters is a red flag for risk-aware investors. The company provides a link to its smart contract code on GitHub, but it does not contain sufficient information either. The contract code is there, but significant terms and conditions are not yet set (token price, lock-ups, etc.). In an official Telegram group the company’s representatives said that “GitHub will be opened gradually. Smart contract details will be opened. Subsequently, we will open up some code to certain influencers for review before the ICO.” Although it is acceptable to publish the smart contract code not long before the ICO, the risk of unclear ICO terms remains to date (April 2018).

OLT will be supplied in the amount of 100,000,000 (one hundred million) tokens, but the company intends to offer only 35% of this amount – 35,000,000 (thirty-five million) for sale. Token distribution will be as follows:

The team specifies the following conditions for the reserves:

  • Community reserve: locked for a minimum of 6 months in smart contracts, and followed by a 1 to 2+ years vesting schedule for the long-term benefit of the community. OneLedger will use the 25% community-reserved tokens solely to benefit growth of the ecosystem. Besides incentivizing developers, OneLedger can also leverage the tokens for community engagement such as managing events and funding development workshops.
  • Team reserve: A vesting period of 24 months with quarterly cliffs implemented in smart contracts.
  • Advisors’ reserve: A vesting period of 12 months with monthly cliffs implemented in smart contracts.
  • Company reserve: locked for the first 6 months and followed by a vesting period of 18 months with monthly cliffs implemented in smart contracts.
  • Marketing and long-term partners: A vesting period of 3 to 6 months with monthly cliffs for marketing reserve. A minimum of 6 months lock-up period followed with a 1 to 2+ years vesting period target for long-term partners. All vesting and lock-up periods implemented via smart contracts.

The team and advisors hold a reasonable stake with justified vesting. The hardcap of 15,000,000 USD seems to be modest for this project and concept.

As per the representation from OneLedger’s team, forecasted use of funds will be as follows:

  • 60% - R&D
  • 20% - operations
  • 15% - marketing
  • 5% - legal

In our opinion the distribution is modest and healthy for the purposes of the project. The team has also informed us that they are working on a more detailed marketing strategy and they also plan to hire a marketing manager for this.

 

The OneLedger protocol aims to unite separate blockchain networks, sidechains and external networks into one transparent, protected and distributed network.

In the whitepaper, the team specifies the following main functions for the platform:

Smart Identity Management Platform

The OneLedger team suggests managing identities, pseudonymous or otherwise, across multiple distributed networks via the assigning of a master private / public key-pair. This master key-pair can then be used to associate any other public keys to an identity using the digital signature of the master key-pair private key. In addition, OneLedger provides a method for one identity to assign a trust value to another, thus creating a hybrid decentralized “web of trust”.

Blockchain Services

The OneLedger protocol enables anyone to launch a side-chain to run on OneLedger. This side-chain can be designated as permissioned or permissionless. In the case of a permissioned side-chain, OneLedger’s Smart Identity Management System can be used to search for identities with a particular trust rating and who provide infrastructure services, i.e. node operators that may store or validate distributed ledgers, and assign particular identities to various roles in order to maintain the side-chain. Also, any public distributed ledger, regardless of its consensus protocol, supporting hashed time lock contracts and payment channels can be synchronized with a corresponding OneLedger side-chain.

Chaincode services

Another function that the OneLedger protocol aims to provide is running dAPPs on multiple platforms. OneLedger is developing an SDK that eases the process of porting the code from different development environments and deploying smart contracts across multiple platforms. It is planned that SDK will allow for users to define a “master smart contract” that specifies the smart contract written in each language of choice. The developer can then launch the dAPP on multiple platforms simultaneously by specifying the desired platforms within the master smart contract.

Programming interface

The primary client-side interface is a REST (Representational State Transfer) API enabling applications to register users, query the blockchain, and issue transactions. A set of APIs are made available for chaincode to directly interact with the stack to execute transactions and query transaction results. The service-side programming interface is a business portal for users to easily build business models and functions in order to project real world functions onto the blockchain.

The OneLedger network can be best described using the following diagram from the whitepaper:

Oneledger Business Center. OneLedger will develop tools within a business portal, enabling users with any level of blockchain experience to map their business module onto the blockchain, generate chaincode through developer-defined modules, and tag the process throughout the flow. The Extendable OneLedger API will help transform business models into blockchain applications through modularity. Each module could be authored by different developers and subsequently integrated with others.

According to the white paper, significant features of the OneLedger SDK are as follows:

  1. Digital Assets: The initiator can define assets in both the flow and process including financial, production, or content assets.
  2. Module: Contains complex business logic. Includes aggregation of workflow and process.
  3. Workflow/Process: The basic unit used to build a module – a function that can be executed based on the OneLedger protocol to complete certain tasks including transactions crossing blockchains, business flow mapping, and runtime data synchronization.
  4. Role Access Control: The decentralized signature system will sign and validate a user together with their associated identifier information whether it be a password, organization information, or role; once validated, access information can be packed into the payload and delegated to modules.
  5. Transaction: A runtime environment for assets and their workflow/processes, where a transaction can come across from different blockchains based on the OneLedger protocol.
  6. Channel: A P2P channel with an emphasis on speed and security to connect two nodes within single or multiple blockchains.
  7. Connector: Enterprise-level integration tool for various business regions; Connector integrates OneLedger’s public blockchain data with the existing centralized commercial network, and establishes a hybrid application combining blockchain and centralized services.

Although the features above may seem relatively self-explanatory, more details are needed to assess the project’s prospects. For example, the “Connector” above is actually one of the most important stumbling rocks of the whole system, because it defines how the protocol will function with external networks and how OneLedger could stand out among its competitors. However, despite being very technical the whitepaper does not cover this important question. The team informed us that Connector is still in the design stage, but they will make sure that it is compatible with all major ERPs.

Key platform customers/users are enterprises; however smaller entities and individuals may also be involved with the platform as application/API/models developers, etc. Possible use cases of OneLedger include but are not limited to:

  • Decentralized exchange between separate ledgers
  • Transfer of business processes and information flows to a transparent, secure and high-performance environment
  • Creation of additional business modules using SDK enables fine tuning the system to specific needs of any enterprise and easy scalability
  • A standardized method of cross-chain communication and a defined consensus protocol between all involved networks.

We draw attention to the fact that project’s whitepaper is not comprehensive enough. Apart from a lack of specific technical details mentioned above which make the difference, the whitepaper has the following problems:

  • Lack of problem formulation and rationale
  • Absence of competitor analysis
  • Absence of a roadmap (published only on the website)
  • Unclear token and project economics (e.g. fees not specified)
  • Use of funds is not detailed enough for analysis and drawing relevant conclusions

These issues, and the absence of an MVP as of April 25, 2018 make assessment of the product’s services and ecosystem almost impossible, and significantly increase the risks for potential investors.

 

4.1 Market analysis.

The global ERP systems market in 2017 is estimated at US$34 billion; forecasts from analysts predict growth to more than US$49 billion by 2020, with compound annual growth rates of up to 7.2%. The market is relatively diversified between several developers:

The global SaaS (software as a service) market size in 2017 amounted to US$46.3 billion, and forecasts predict growth to US$76 billion by 2020, with compound average annual growth rates of 18%. Major manufacturers include IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Fujitsu, Google, Salesforce, Workday, ADP and SAP. Unfortunately, no data regarding market split between the above developers is available on open sources.

Juniper Research performed a blockchain enterprise survey in August 2017, which showed that 57% of companies with over 20,000 employees are deploying or considering deploying blockchain solutions in their business operations. Orbis Research estimated that up to 65% of enterprise will be using blockchain solutions by 2020. And finally, Nasdaq’s GlobeNewswire believes that the global market for blockchain will reach U$60.7 billion by 2024.The key problem with this estimate is that the blockchain market is measured based on its capitalization which currently depends highly on the cryptocurrency market, which as we know is very volatile, but with a high probability the market under consideration may reach tens of billions in capitalization in US$ in the foreseeable future.

As the three markets above grow and develop, the need for cross-blockchain solutions which can be connected to external networks via API will also be growing, driving demand for solutions that companies like ICON, OneLedger and others are developing. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to estimate the potential market share for OneLedger and its competitors due to a high degree of unpredictability of the blockchain segment, due to its immaturity at the time of analysis (April 2018).

4.2 Competitive landscape.

As of April 2018 there are several projects in the cryptospace that aim to solve interoperability problems between the traditional space and blockchain, as well as between different blockchains. All these projects may differentiate themselves from one another offering additional features, and focusing different segments or markets. To name a few, ICON, Unibright, Aion, Ark, Wanchain, Polkadot and Cosmos have come up with similar ideas; this is a highly competitive market at the moment. The OneLedger team did not perform a competitive analysis in their whitepaper, and thus do not disclose how they are planning to distinguish themselves from the competition.

 

OneLedger

ICON

Unibright

Aion

Ark

Project type

Cross-ledger architecture with SDK

Cross-ledger architecture

Ecosystem/platform

Cross-ledger architecture

Ecosystem / architecture

Key functions

Interoperability with multiple blockchains and ERPs, “master smart contracts”, SDK and ability to create apps, blockchains

Interoperability with multiple blockchains

Interoperability with multiple blockchains and ERPs (specifically SAP), master contracts, GUI providing ability to create blockchain-based solutions

Interoperability with multiple blockchains

Interoperability with multiple blockchains

Key users

Enterprises

Enterprises/developers

Enterprises

Enterprises

Enterprises/ developers

Development stage

No MVP yet

Mainnet and wallet released, ongoing development

MVP available

No MVP

Wallets released, SmartBridge released

ICO status

Pre-sale ended

ICO ended

ICO is ongoing, ends in May 2018

ICO cancelled, Presale ended

ICO ended

Capitalization

(as of ICO date/hardcap)

US$10 million/ US$15 million

~ US$28.4 million/ US$43.9 million

- / US$13 million

- / US$20 million

1,279 BTC / 2,000 BTC

Product launch

2019

n/a

2019

2018-2019 (different product segments)

Aiming for ecosystem launch by the end of 2018

As of April 2018, the market for projects like OneLedger is highly competitive. Even though OneLedger is offering more than most competitors, it is falling behind in terms of development – 3 out of 4 competitors selected have finished their ICOs, are deep within the development process and have demos/MVP/working products to show already. On the other hand, OneLedger may use this to its advantage and come up with possible ways to differentiate themselves from others.

In addition to the above, there is a certain degree of probability that developers of massive ERPs like SAP, Oracle, Microsoft and others may dive into in-house development of their own blockchain-communicating modules for the integration of existing blockchain solutions into their networks.

 

The creation of a cross-network blockchain layer network with its own SDK, all the relevant APIs, user interfaces and architecture requires a significant amount of expertise and competence. The team’s capability to deliver such a complex project will be easier to assess once the MVP is released. Without an MVP, the risks of failing to meet the roadmap or even failing altogether remain high. Final product launch is expected in 2019 as stated in the roadmap, which gives the team a maximum of 1.5 years to develop and release the platform. Without the MVP or alpha version, it is hard to determine if the team will be able to meet those deadlines. We also draw attention to the fact that the smart contract code on GitHub is being coded by people not listed on the team roster. Other than this, the team seems relevant to and sufficient for the project.

David Cao

Founder & CEO

With over 3 years of blockchain experience and over 10 years of enterprise architect experience, David has worked on a large number of technical projects for several Fortune 500 enterprises. He also worked at IBM Toronto Lab, with the development of DB2 and WebSphere Commerce core engine. As a specialist in supply chain, payments, e-commerce, and as an experienced J2EE enterprise architect, David has helped large enterprises grow exponentially, including Home Depot, Walmart, Xerox, etc. David is an active member in both the hyperledger and blockchain communities. David graduated from the University of Science and Technology, China.

Alex Todd

Chief Technology Advisor

Alex has over 7 years of technological experience, including developing enterprise solutions for companies like IBM and Metrolinx. Alex graduated from the University of Toronto.

Stephen Li

Lead Engineer

JavaScript expert, well-experienced full stack web developer; has worked for companies like Morgan Stanley, CGI, TEK systems, IBM, Microsoft, and NEC. Has over 10 years of experience in enterprise programming. Stephen graduated from the University of Electronic Science and Technology.

Edwin Zhang

 Managing Director

Edwin is a seasoned professional in the blockchain space. He is a former software engineering lead in blockchain-related R&D for TribalScale – an innovation firm specializing in emerging technologies. Edwin has a vast technical background both as a blockchain developer with Solidity and Ethereum smart contract development experience, and as a software developer. He has around 4 years of experience in enterprise development. Edwin graduated from the University of Waterloo.

Othalia Doe-Bruce

Public Relations Officer

Othalia has 10 years of experience working in the financial services industry in general, and the asset management and wealth management fields in particular. She has worked for Manulife Asset Management, Citigroup, Thompson Reuters. She volunteers as Community and Relationships Manager for BlockchainHub, holds CIPM certification and she is also a certified Ethereum developer. Othalia graduated from Baruch College.

Paul Homer

 

Senior Blockchain Engineer

Paul has over 15 years of enterprise software engineering and application with companies like Thompson Reuters, IBM, Tendermint, and CIBC. He graduated from the University of Waterloo.

Alex Lan

Blockchain Engineer / Researcher

Alex has around 3 years of experience in the field of data analytics for companies like MindGeek and Amazon. Alex holds a patent in the blockchain field. He graduated from Western University and Beihang University.

 

Lester Li

Blockchain Engineer

Lester has more than 10 years of work experience in information security and telecoms. He worked for Nokia Siemens Networks for 5 years, and previously graduated from the Southwest University of Nationalities. Lester does not have a developed LinkedIn contact network and has no recommendations/endorsements from his former colleagues.

Key project advisors

Trevor Koverko

 

Advisor

Trevor Koverko is a prominent blockchain founder, investor and speaker.

After launching his career at the convergence of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, Trevor became a very early leader in the blockchain community.

Trevor has keynoted major blockchain events like the North American Bitcoin Conference and seeded foundation projects like Ethereum, Aion, QTum, Hive, EOS and Shapeshift. In 2017, after predicting a mega-trend for financial securities migrating to the blockchain, Trevor co-founded Polymath - the world’s largest securities token network.

Matthew Niemerg

Advisor

Matthew is a distributed ledger technology consultant. He is currently advising OneLedger, Ternio, Helix Cognitive Computing, and Hardfork Entertainment. He has also worked for IBM and Colorado State University.

Jor Law

Advisor

Jor is a pioneer in building ecosystems for digitizing and trading securities on the blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies. A corporate, finance, and securities attorney, he is most well-known for his expertise in alternative finance, including EB-5, venture capital, crowdfunding, and initial coin offerings (ICOs). He is a co-founder of VerifyInvestor.com, the dominant accredited investor verification service in the world and a founding shareholder of Homeier Law PC. He is an expert on attracting and verifying accredited investors. Within the crypto space, he's most passionate about securities regulations affecting tokens, identity for regulatory purposes vs privacy and anonymity, and cross-ledger or cross-chain technologies. He does not disclose his advisory capacity for OneLedger on LinkedIn.

Sam Onat Yilmaz

Advisor

Sam is a CEO at Windmill Enterprises and an advisor of tokenized distributed applications. He has worked for venture funds like idaCapital and BitAngels. He has also worked for Engine Inc. and John Hopkins University where he performed research and was VP of product development. He does not disclose his advisor role for OneLedger on LinkedIn.

Gavin Knight

Advisor

The official OneLedger documentation states that Gavin is a Factom Foundation Advisor. Nevertheless, his profile on LinkedIn is not informative; he has no endorsements or recommendations from anyone. The Factom Foundation website does not mention him as their advisor.

 

Mervyn Chng

Advisor

Mervyn is a partner in Gwei Capital Ltd and has also worked as a General Manager at Fest Enterprise Oil Private Limited. He has also served as a member/investor and a community cooperator for RChain Cooperative, an open-source blockchain project.

 

Reuben Loo

 

Advisor

Reuben is a partner in the MW Partners Group, a blockchain consulting firm in Singapore. He also served as a blockchain community manager in several projects (Gifto Project, Zilliqa, Quantstamp Technologies, UTRUST). He is also advising  Loom Network and Hybrid Block.

The advisors for the project are respected professionals, and include several famous names from the blockchain industry such as Trevor Koverko, the CEO of Polymath. Some advisors do not mention OneLedger in their social networks although that is acceptable and does not create significant risks. There is no information on whether investments from VC funds or seasoned investors have been received by OneLedger during the seeding stage.

 

The OneLedger platform will require use of its utility token OLT (ERC-20 token) and 100 million OLT will be premined. When the platform matures, there will be 3 types of users of OLT token: users, network supporters (nodes) and developers (as per the whitepaper):

1. Users. Users, including businesses, need to pay a network fee to nodes to use any services on the OneLedger platform. They can either acquire OLT tokens from other token holders, or they can run a node themselves to start acquiring tokens for business use cases. Users might need to pay OLT tokens to access services sold in the marketplace based on the distribution smart contract set by the developers.

2. Network supporters (nodes). Network supporters (nodes) will receive OLT tokens as network fees. In the early phase, OneLedger’s software will enable anyone to run a node. After a period of time, a staking amount may be established to ensure commitment and the quality of the network.

3. Developers. Developers will range from individual contributors to enterprise teams, to consulting firms. Developers need OLT tokens to deploy their modules on the OneLedger platform. They can submit modules and code to OneLedger Marketplace with a smart contract that defines the terms of sale. For instance, these services could be free, or users may need to pay developers a one-time fee to unlock a service, or developers can even implement a smart contract as a subscription business model so users will need to pay OLT tokens monthly to keep accessing services. Additionally, OneLedger will give a grant to the best developers and most qualified projects by leveraging the 25% of tokens reserved for the community.

The company does not disclose any more detailed token metrics in its whitepaper. The platform economy remains unclear. There is no understanding whether fees and payments within the platform will be set in OLT, or fixed in fiat but paid in OLT. Such details matter significantly, not only for investors who want to understand the possible upsides and downsides of pricing policy, for example, or want to understand potential revenue flows for the company. These details are important for the team, as well, as they have to understand how they will monetize their product, and whether the project can be profitable at all. There is no information in the whitepaper regarding any conditional burning or additional emission in the future, so we assume that no such things will happen, and therefore cannot affect the token price.

OneLedger plans to monetize their platform via fees paid by its users.

The application of the OLT token seems reasonable – users must have supplies of this token if they want to benefit from the OneLedger ecosystem. In theory, itcould be replaced by, for example, Ethereum, but the OLT token is necessary to ensure proper use of the underlying resources, incentivize the consensus algorithm and also to collect usage fees for the marketplace.

We identified the following key factors potentially affecting the token price:

Factor

Description

Price effect

Development and release of new products according to the roadmap

The OneLedger ICO is expected to take place in May and MVP will be released subsequently. The alpha version and API are expected to be done by the end of 2018 and final platform launch is expected to take place sometime in 2019. Whether or not the team is meeting those milestones, and the degree of the product development at each stage will drive the token price up or down.

Demand for the platform

At the date of analysis (April 2018) it is hard to predict demand for the platform in 2019 once it is released. Nevertheless, the need for a cross-blockchain solution will increase as more and more enterprises start to implement blockchain solutions in their systems. On the other hand, OneLedger has competitors which (given the significant OneLedger turnaround development time of 1,5) may react and scale their businesses before OneLedger launches.

Sales of tokens by the team, advisors and community (developers)

65% of tokens are reserved for the team and advisors (15%), company reserve (10%), marketing and long-term partners (15%) and community reserve (25%). Even though the vesting and lock-up periods for all of the above are different, there is a risk that some of these tokens will be sold for profit once the lock-up periods end or once they are distributed (among developers). This may force the token price down.

Sales of tokens by seeding/presale investors

US$10 million from a  US$15 million hardcap were raised by the presale and from seeding investors. There is a significant degree of probability that they will want to fix their profits and sell their tokens once listed on exchanges.

 



 

Discounts

The company does not disclose any discounts for the presale and seeding investors, but it is a reasonable assumption that there were. Therefore, presale and seeding investors who wish to realize their gains may cause the price to drop lower in the course of taking their profits.

 


 

Limited token supply

Assuming that the company develops as intended and demand for the solution is sufficient, a limited token supply will result in a long-term deflation of the token price.

Volatility of the crypto market

Although the platform, token and product do not have speculative purposes, the high volatility of crypto markets may cause traders and speculative investors to trade OLT, which may lead to OLT price fluctuations or even speculative activities (pump and dump, etc.).

 

Based on our analysis we identified the following risks for the OneLedger project:

Risk

Description

Level

Absence of MVP

As of the date of analysis (April 2018) the team has not yet released an MVP, which is expected to be released in Q1-Q2 2018 according to the project’s roadmap. Absence of an MVP seriously jeopardizes the ability to assess the team’s competence, the capabilities of the proposed product, the degree of product development and other crucial factors that investors in an ICO must consider before making any decision to invest. Once the MVP is released, and team progress is transparent, this risk may decrease.

 

High

Lack of clear ICO details, terms and conditions. Smart contract code on GitHub insufficient.

 

The team is not transparent on its website or in the project’s whitepaper regarding some important ICO terms, e.g. start and end dates are not specified and token price is not mentioned anywhere. The terms for two presale stages were not specified (the team disclosed them in its Telegram group however). The smart contract code published on GitHub is not sufficient and does not cover significant terms for the ICO. We assess this risk as currently high, although if the team discloses the respective contract code and updates its website before the start of the public sale, the risk may be decreased at that point.

High

Business and commercial risks

 

Competition is very high, and the fact that the majority of competitors mentioned have made considerable progress in their product development as compared to OneLedger, increases business and commercial risks for the OneLedger team. The team does not disclose in sufficient detail to what degree their product is compatible with existing ERP systems (the product is aimed strongly at enterprises); this is critical for understanding the competitive position of OneLedger compared to their rivals.

High

Lack of clear revenue sources or project monetization

The team does not disclose the manner in which the project will be monetized, either on the project’s website or in the whitepaper. The team informs us that the project will be monetized via fees from users of the platform. However, these fees are not yet specified, and the need to support the platform and related working capital requires stable sources of revenue.

Medium

Whitepaper is not comprehensive

Lack of specific technical details regarding the crucial components and stumbling blocks for the whole protocol and the following problems:

  • Lack of problem formulation and rationale
  • Absence of competitor analysis
  • Absence of a roadmap (published only on the website)
  • Unclear token and project economics (e.g. fees are not specified)

Given that there is no MVP, all the above significantly increase risks for investors

Medium

Team composition

 

The team has ambitious plans in terms of product complexity and deadlines – they plan to release a MVP in Q2 2018, an alpha version and relevant API in Q3-Q4 2018 and the final platform release in 2019. Without the MVP it is hard to assess if those deadlines are feasible, given that there are only 4 developers and so much to work on.

Medium

Development risks/team risks

The team is supposed to release a final version of the platform sometime in 2019. As of April 2018, they do not have an MVP. Application, adoption and beta-testing/performance improvement of a product for enterprise use will require significant time and effort from the team. In addition to that, several problems are to be solved prior to release – compatibility with existing ERPs, API integration, system performance under high load, other blockchains integration to name a few.

Medium

Token price decrease

Moderate discounts during the presale (up to 25%) and seeding, a significant portion of funding obtained during the presale (67%) and significant reserves for marketing/platform growth activities (40% in total) may lead to significant pressure on the token price before the platform reaches maturity.

Medium

Risk of new entrants into the market from the enterprise ERPs

There is some risk that large companies like SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, Sage and Infor, which together cover 58% of the market as of 2017, will begin development of their own blockchain integration modules once mass implementation of blockchain solutions begins; they have resources to do that. While it’s highly doubtful that they will develop their own ecosystems from scratch, they may develop some relevant APIs and/or integration modules themselves, therefore reducing the market size for blockchain startups like OneLedger.

Low

 

 

 

The information contained in the document is for informational purposes only. The views expressed in this document are solely personal stance of the ICOrating Team, based on data from open access and information that developers provided to the team through Skype, email or other means of communication.

Our goal is to increase the transparency and reliability of the young ICO market and to minimize the risk of fraud.

We appreciate feedback with constructive comments, suggestions and ideas on how to make the analysis more comprehensive and informative.