Coin Report #13: Bettex

AD: Before I begin this post, I’d like to briefly mention Bitcoin.Live, who are sponsoring my blog.

Bitcoin.Live offers regular, detailed content on their free-to-access blog, created by a panel of analysts (including Peter Brandt), and covering all manner of market-related topics. I found both the video material and the blog posts to be genuinely insightful, with many differing analytical perspectives available for viewers and readers. The platform also offers premium content for paying subscribers who find value in the free material, with daily videos, alerts and support provided. Check it out and bookmark the blog.


N.B: The following Coin Report on Bettex is community-selected. Bettex won the recent poll; Cashaa placed second; and NKN placed third. All three will have a report written over the coming weeks.

Welcome to the thirteenth Coin Report. In today’s report, I will be assessing the fundamental and technical strengths and weaknesses of Bettex. This will comprise of an analysis of a number of significant metrics, an evaluation of the project’s community and development and an overview of its price-history. The report will conclude with a grading out of 10. I hope you enjoy the read!

Introduction

Prior to the research process beginning for this report, I had no idea what Bettex was. (In honesty, I have no idea what Cashaa or NKN – the other two community-selected coins – are either.) Having now completed my research, I must say that there is a lot that needs to be discussed here.

Bettex is by far the smallest coin by network value that I will have written a report about, and perhaps that might excuse some of the failings I have found; that said, much of what I consider to be basic practice when it comes to the fundamental quality of a project was found wanting in my research. Despite that, there were also a few absolute surprises (pleasant ones)…

I hope this report will prove objective where it must be and fair on more subjective matters. For those who’d like to learn a little more about Bettex prior to reading this report, here are some primary links:


Fundamental

General:

Name: Bettex

Ticker: BTXC

Algorithm: XEVAN (now fully Proof-of-Stake)

Sector: Decentralised Betting Exchange

Exchanges: CryptoBridge, Crex24, Graviex & CoinExchange

Launch Overview

Bettex was launched in July 2018, operating on the XEVAN algorithm, with dual Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake. The Proof-of-Work stage has now ended and Bettex is fully Proof-of-Stake, alongside a network of masternodes. There was a 1mn BTXC premine, amounting to 2% of the maximum supply, and no ICO.

Price-History Overview

As Bettex is less than 12 months old, there is very little price-history available for analysis. That said, it did make an all-time high of just shy of 6000 satoshis in late October 2018, and an all-time high against the Dollar of $0.38. Price has since experienced decline, alongside the rest of the market, and is currently trading at 1800 satoshis, a little above long-term support.

Project Overview

Bettex is looking to build a decentralised betting exchange. The project is in its infancy but the beta launch of its platform is set to be released this quarter, as we will discuss at length later.

There are a lot of gambling-related projects in this space, and becoming a leader amongst them is no small feat. Let us see how Bettex fares in this regard:


Metric Analysis:

Below are listed a number of important metrics, all of which are accurate as of 18th February 2019. For anyone reading this who has yet to read a Coin Report, it might be worth reading this section of the first report, where any potentially unfamiliar terms are explained. For any terms or metrics specific to this post, I will provide explanations besides the figures.

Metrics:

General:

Price: $0.068 (1801 satoshis)

Exchange Volume: $11,584

Circulating Supply: 4,830,602 BTXC

Total Supply: 4,830,602 BTXC

Maximum Supply: 50,000,000 BTXC

% of Max. Supply Minted: 9.66%

Network Value: $326,595 (87 BTC)

Network Value at Max. Supply: $3.38mn

Category: Lowcap

Exchange Volume-to-Network Value: 3.55%

Average Price (30-Day): $0.084

Average Exchange Volume (30-Day): $12,782

Average Network Value (30-Day): $392,151

Average Exchange Volume (30-Day)-to-Network Value: 3.26%

Volatility* (30-Day): -0.04098

Average Daily On-Chain Transactions (30-Day)**:  16

Average Daily Transactional Value*** (30-Day): $4,892

NVT**** (30-Day): 66.76

% Price Change USD (30-Day): -31.4%

% Price Change USD (1-Year): N/A

USD All-Time High: $0.38

% From USD All-Time High: -82.1%

Premine % of Max. Supply: 2%

Premine Location: http://explorer.bettex.bet/address/BCSVcJpd9fAqDLGQ6hqTDE5yVxs7AeUe92

Liquidity (calculated as the sum of BTC in the buy-side with 10% of current price across all exchanges): 0.1859 BTC

Liquidity-to-Network Value %: 0.21%

Amount Available on Exchanges: 91,241 BTXC

% of Circulating Supply Available on Exchanges: 1.89%

*Volatility is calculated by taking the average price over the given time-period, calculating the difference between it and the highest price and it and the lowest price over that same time-period, and multiplying those figures together. The closer to 0, the less volatility during that period, and vice-versa. Read this for more on volatility.

**Average Daily On-Chain Transactions: This is usually calculated by taking the total number of transactions over the previous 30 days and dividing it by 30. However, as the Bettex block explorer has limited functionality, and I was only able to find data for the past 100 transactions, the calculations are less refined. A number of these transactions took place over a period of exactly 4 days; as such, I simply divided 30 by 4 and multiplied this by the number of transactions for that period, dividing the result by 30 to find an expected average daily figure for 30 days. Again, this is unrefined, and 4 days of data is nothing to go on.

***Transactional Value in $ is calculated by taking the daily transactional value in BTXC and multiplying it by price.

****NVT is calculated by dividing the Network Value by the Average Daily Transactional Value. See here for more on NVT.

Supply Emission & Inflation:

Block Reward Schedule: Currently in final reward stage of 4 BTXC per block.

Average Block Time: 60 seconds

Current Block Height: 315583

Annual Supply Emission: 2,102,400 BTXC (37.86 BTC at current prices)

Annual Inflation Rate: 43.52%

Circulating Supply in 365 Days: 6,933,002 BTXC

Staking & Masternodes:

Network Staking Weight: N/A

Staking ROI (Annual)*: 9.3% (minimum)

Masternode Collateral Size: 5,000

Masternode Price: $338

Masternode Count: 514

Masternode Count Growth (30-Day): 8.95%

Supply Locked in Masternodes: 2,570,000 BTXC

Masternode ROI (Annual)**: 73.62%

Masternode Reward / Block Reward: 90%

Masternode Network Value: $173,757

MNV / Network Value: 53.2%

*To calculate minimum annual staking ROI: (Annual Supply Emission * (Stake Reward / Block Reward)) / (Circulating Supply – Supply Locked in Masternodes) = (2,102,400 * 0.1) / 2,260,602 = 9.3%

**To calculate annual masternode ROI based on current active masternodes: (Annual Supply Emission * (Masternode Reward / Block Reward)) / Supply Locked in Masternodes: (2,102,400 * 0.9) / 2,570,000 = 73.62%

Distribution:

Address Count: N/A

Supply Held By Top 10 Addresses: 23.35%

Supply Held By Top 20 Addresses: 28.4%

Supply Held By Top 100 Addresses: 39.98%

Inactive Address Count in Top 20 (30 Days of No Activity): 5

Analysis:

So, there’s a fair amount to work through here, and I’ll begin as I often like to: with those metrics related to transactions.

This is of particular significance for a decentralised betting exchange, as BTXC is the means-of-payment for the exchange, thus on-chain transactions will tell us a little bit about how much the coin is actually being used outside of speculation. The problem here is that the Bettex explorer (like many) is limited to data for the past 100 transactions, and so my calculations will not be entirely accurate.

Anyway, I was quite pleasantly surprised to find that there was around $4,892-worth of on-chain transactions, giving Bettex a NVT of 66.76. This did derive from only 16 daily transactions, on average, and also does not account for fees or give us any indication as to how much of this is being transacted on the current alpha version of the betting platform. Regardless, this is a decent amount of on-chain activity for a lowcap project in its infancy.

Now, for the remainder of this section, I will run-through the remaining General metrics, before discussing Supply Emission & Inflation, the Bettex masternode network, and finally Distribution:

Firstly, I’d like to highlight Bettex’s Volatility, which I calculated to be -0.04098. This is the second-lowest 30-day volatility of any coin previously reported on, suggesting some degree of stability against the Dollar over the past month. This is also quite surprising given that lowcaps often are the most volatile of all.

Next up, the supply-and-demand-related metrics: Liquidity and Supply Available on Exchanges.

Bettex is listed on four small exchanges, and thus Liquidity of 0.1859 BTC should comes as no surprise. However, this equates to 0.21% of its Network Value; placing it in the middle of the pack against other coins from these reports. It has weaker liquidity than Altbet, Cloakcoin, MonetaryUnit and Stakenet, for example, but greater liquidity than GeoCoin, ALQO and Arionum.

When it comes to the supply-side metric, there is a little over 91k BTXC available on its exchanges, equating to 1.89% of its circulating supply. This again places Bettex somewhere in the middle, with less supply on the market than Bismuth, MonetaryUnit or Dero, but more available to buy than Bulwark and Trittium. Not bad, on both accounts.

Now, to conclude this analysis of General metrics, let’s take a look at volume:

Bettex experienced $11,584 of Exchange Volume over the past 24 hours, and experienced, on average, $12,782 of daily volume over the past month. It is good to see some consistency in these figures. From this, we can determine that Bettex’s Exchange Volume-to-Network Value is 3.55% and its Average EVNV is 3.26%. These are impressive figures, though I must emphasise that it is more common to find such ratios amongst altcoins with network values below $1mn.

However, when you compare the figures against the two other sub-$1mn altcoins I have reported on (Altbet and Trittium), you find that Bettex wins by a country mile. The Average EVNV of Bettex is 1.5x greater than that of Altbet and a whopping 16x greater than that of Trittium. This suggests that there is some unusual degree of interest in Bettex at current prices.

Now, let us move on to those metrics related to supply emission:

The first point to note is that (unlike Trittium – a project of similar age that has already minted ~80% of its maximum supply) Bettex has only minted 9.66% of its maximum supply. This suggests that we may have a period of high inflation yet to be experienced.

The second point to note is that Bettex is in its final block reward stage of 4 BTXC per block, to occur in perpetuity. With 1440 blocks minted daily, this gives us an annual supply emission of 2,102,400 BTXC (or 37.86 BTC at current prices). This puts the annual inflation rate at 43.52%, which, whilst quite high, is lower than I’d have expected given the above facts.

But how does this supply emission relate to exchange volume?

Well, with 2,102,400 BTXC minted annually, we can work out that, on average, 5,760 BTXC are minted daily. This equates to 0.103 BTC at current prices, or $389.43 of daily supply emission.

Bettex’s Exchange Volume and Average Exchange Volume cover this supply emission by ~29.7x and ~32.82x, respectively. This is certainly suggestive of current prices being sustainable, with weaker headwinds to price growth than would have initially been assumed. Further, Bettex’s Liquidity is 1.8x greater than daily supply emission, indicating that buy support within 10% of current prices would be able to soak up any dumping of newly minted supply, though not all that comfortably.

Now, let’s move on to Staking and Masternodes:

Bettex’s block explorer does not give us the Network Staking Weight, and so I have had to calculate the minimum annual ROI for stakers if all circulating supply (minus that locked in masternodes) was being staked. This resulted in a minimum annual ROI of 9.3%; not a great choice given that annual inflation is ~4x greater.

As for masternodes, Bettex has 514 active nodes (having grown 8.95% over the past month), each allocating 5000 BTXC of collateral, amounting to 2.57mn BTXC locked in the masternode network. Using this figure, I calculated that the annual ROI would be 73.62%; a much better option for potential buyers, and one that amply covers annual inflation. This is a symptom of the 90% block reward share to masternode holders. Lastly, the Masternode Network Value amounts to ~$174k; around 53.2% of Bettex’s Network Value. This is indicative of a moderately strong masternode network.

To conclude, I’ll take a look at the coin’s Distribution:

The top 10 richest addresses control 23.35% of the circulating supply; the top 20 control 28.4%; and the top 100 control 39.98%.

The caveat is that the richest address is a burn address and amount to 13.32% of the circulating supply. Discounting it, the top 100 begins to look far more decentralised at a little under 27%.

Of the top 20 addresses, 5 have been inactive over the past 30 days. And of the remaining 15, addresses, only the 20th-richest is in active distribution. As mentioned earlier, the richest is a burn address, 11 of these addresses are either accumulating stake rewards or masternode rewards, and 2 addresses added 16,000 BTXC to their positions this month. 1 address that is staking is distributing these rewards periodically.

And that concludes this section on Metric Analysis. Onto the Bettex Community:


Community:

There are two primary aspects of community analysis: social media presence and Bitcointalk threads. I’ll begin with the former before moving on to the latter.

Social Media:

Concerning social media presence, there are four main platforms to examine: Twitter, Facebook, Telegram and Discord.

Bettex is present on two of these platforms: Twitter and Discord. To begin, let’s look at the various social metrics that I calculated from the Bettex Twitter account:

Twitter Followers: 727

Tweets: 137

Average Twitter Engagement: 4.16%*

*one Tweet experienced an unusual amount of engagement, which likely skews this figure.

As usual, I will be using RivalIQ‘s social benchmark report for evaluation purposes.

Twitter:

As is expressed in the report, the average engagement rate on Twitter across all industries is 0.046%, and the average in the Media industry is 0.013%; Bettex’s engagement rate of 4.16% is 90.4x greater than the former and 320x greater than the latter. Whilst undoubtedly impressive, it must be said that this is also a symptom of a small following, plus the single tweet that experienced high engagement will have dragged these figures up.

Relative to all coins previously reported on, Bettex places 1st for Twitter engagement. Discounting the anomaly, it would likely place markedly lower.

Discord:

The Bettex Discord contains 4143 members; an audience far larger than that found on Twitter. Given this fact, I expected a hive of activity and buzz and conversation upon joining the group, but I was massively disappointed.

Let’s begin with the positives: the group itself is organised well, accessible for new users with its Official Links channel full of resources, sees no lack of commitment on the part of the development team regarding support or updates, and features an ID Verification channel with details for the core team and an Announcements channel that is updated at least twice a week.

In this channel, over the past few weeks, I found out about various wallet updates; Huobi listing registration; listing on Midas DEX; an interview with the CEO; a fundraising campaign with $1600 of community donations (short of the $30,000 target); and the inclusion of a new programmer to the core team.

Now, the negatives: I don’t like the fixation from the team on the price of the coin, with multiple messages about “buying while it’s cheap”l this is somewhat unprofessional and certainly not the role of a development team. Also, General – the channel that is most often most active – had 57 messages over the past week, or less than 10 per day. For a group with over 4,000 members, this is very low community engagement. Further, the bulk of these are general chit-chat or “good morning” messages; there is very little, if anything, on the future of the project, the development of the platform, the growth of the community or any community-led suggestions. Somewhat ironically, there were also a lot of messages concerning the community poll for this report.

Overall, I am quite disappointed in this Discord group.

BitcoinTalk:

The Bettex BitcoinTalk thread was created on July 23rd, 2018, and has since generated 499 posts spanning 25 pages in 210 days. This equates to 2.38 posts per day, on average. However, in the past 90 days, the thread has had 182 posts via 36 individual posters, giving an average of 2.02 posts per day; a small decline in average engagement.

Regarding the content of the thread, there is a lot here on the current state of the project and the future aspirations. I found out about the current premine burns (20k BTXC weekly); masternode partnerships; the upcoming beta release of the betting exchange this quarter; negotiations for listings with Poloniex, Kucoin, Livecoin and Exmo (of these, I doubt Poloniex is a serious candidate given the size of the project at present); plans to integrate LocalBitcoins as a fiat gateway to the betting exchange in the future; mobile wallets to be released soon; and the Midas DEX listing.

Further, there are regular updates pushed out by the team and, unlike in the Discord group, I found some palpable community interest in the project.


Development:

For the following Development analysis, I will be evaluating project leadership, the website, the roadmap, the whitepaper, the wallets and finally providing a general overview:

Project Leadership:

There is no team information on the website. There are 2 Github contributors.

I did eventually find information about the team, in Discord of all places, where there are 6 listed core members, occupying various positions across development, management and marketing. This is the extent of the available info in Discord.

I later found what I was looking for in a separate document linked on the website, where full information is provided for all team members. Please make this clearly available on the website itself, as it took me no small amount of navigation to find.

Despite this poor accessibility as a potential new user, the team themselves are indeed well-experienced and balanced. This, as a positive, should be something emphasised in all areas where new users might be captured (website, Bitcointalk, social platforms etc.).

Website:

https://www.bettex.bet/

The website is quite poor; although modern in its layout, it is poorly-designed from a UX-perspective, with unclear and irrelevant headings in the navigation menu. The content itself is mostly vague and lacks any real detail, with much written in broken English. Totally understandable when the team are not native English speakers, but, as the first point-of-reference for new users, this looks unprofessional – perhaps hire someone to update the design and the copy.

The link provided to the betting exchange alpha release doesn’t actually load, which means that I can’t evaluate anything there. The screenshots provided do, however, look very much clean and user-friendly.

The Getting Started and Where To Find Us sections are much better, with useful information plus clear and relevant links to exchanges and wallets. The social platforms are also easily accessible.

Overall, it just feels very amateurish, and not what you would want for a project looking to tackle the gambling industry, where so much emphasis is given (and so many resources spent) on accomodating users and providing a seamless, sleek experience.

Roadmap:

https://www.bettex.bet/#roadmap

The roadmap, whilst native to the website, is actually more accessible in its design. Visually, it appears, like many roadmaps, in an easy-to-follow, quarter-by-quarter map. However, this is the extent of its merits, as it is severely lacking detail and depth. There are no links with further information, and there are only a handful of goals (each a few words in length) in the roadmap. There are also no measures of progress.

Regarding the content of the roadmap, Q2 2018 states that there was a masternode presale (this conflicts with the Bitcointalk thread where it is mentioned that there was no presale – which is correct?). Q3 2018 saw the first exchange listing and listing on masternodes.online. Q4 saw the alpha release of the betting exchange.

Q1 2019 will see the beta release of the betting exchange; Android and iOS wallet releases; and new exchange listings. Q2 2019 will see the final platform release; a top 50 exchange listing; and mobile betting.

Whitepaper:

https://www.bettex.bet/whitepaper_eng.pdf

The whitepaper is 13 pages in length, and written largely in somewhat broken prose. This does not particularly professional to a first-time reader.

The introduction gives context to the project and the betting industry, and also outlines the current problems with the industry: high fees, troublesome verification, trusted third parties etc. We are then told that Bettex is a decentralised betting exchange, which will use BTXC for payments, and will seek to solve the aforementioned issues.

The platform itself will be based on BigchainDB, and a table is provided to illuminate advantages over traditional blockchains/databases. This is all explained clearly, though again in broken English, which limits professionalism. The main benefit is low latency over traditional blockchains.

The following sections are concerned with BTXC, the coin, stating it to be a fork of PIVX, Proof-of-Stake with masternodes. We are told that 1 million BTXC was premined, but there is a conflict here as it mentions that there are plans to sell this to investors and plans to burn 1 million BTXC. They are currently burning ~20,000 BTXC a week, and the printed block reward schedule indicates a dev fee of 20,010 BTXC every 10,800 blocks.

It is unclear whether this is in addition to the supply emission depicted in the reward schedule or forms a portion of it; I would imagine it is in addition, as the dev fee would be 50% of the minted supply otherwise, which I highly doubt is the case. It is also unclear whether it is this dev fee that is being burned each week and whether the 1mn premine was sold to investors, or whether the dev fee is collected and the premine is burnt. Further, this dev fee, even if in addition to other supply emission, constitutes a ~33% fee (20,010 / 63,210). There is just a lot of confusion here…

Now, I have taken this directly from the conclusion:

“we against the deception of people, involved in the cryptocurrency industry. We against SCAM, HYP, copied and unreasoned projects.”

Whilst a wonderful sentiment, the quality of the whitepaper (or those sentences) does not reflect this message.

Wallets:

There are Windows, Linux and Mac wallets available, with iOS and Android wallets in development.

General:

In this concluding fundamental section, I’d like to talk about the Presentation document that differs from the whitepaper.

Here, it is stated that the goals of the project are to: create a decentralised betting exchange; create a bot based on AI for betting purposes; build a service for trusted management of funds for professional bettors (I assume something similar to social trading); build peer-to-peer gateways; host private events; and ensure anonymity.

More importantly, there is a section on funding, which states that the project seeks to crowdfund $277k for development via the sale of Bettex stock – a separate token based on the Waves platform. Holders of Bettex stock will receive 30% revenue share from the betting exchange.

What is the incentive to buy and hold BTXC, then? And why is this separate token obscured from the website (it is mentioned in the footer, with no detail)?


Technical

Despite only 5 or 6 months of available price-history, there do appear to be a couple of short-term cycles that have played out, alongside some important levels having formed. The most important of these is the level at which price has recently bounced, it being an area of long-term support. This support is also the bottom of an accumulation range from back in October 2018.

Volume has been declining for the duration of the decline from the local high from December (~5250 satoshis), which aligns with a low-risk short-term buy around current prices. I would not personally be a buyer because of the fundamental evaluation that preceded this section, but those looking purely at technicals have a low-risk, high-reward opportunity with a soft stop at 1600 satoshis and targets above 5000 satoshis. That is ~30% risk versus ~120% reward, or 4:1 reward-to-risk.


Conclusion

This report is now over 4,000 words, and it is time to draw it to a close.

My final grading for Bettex is 5 out of 10.

Despite the various strengths (some immense, such as those in the Metrics section), there is simply not enough here at present for me to consider being a buyer or to grade the project above a 5. There is plenty to work on moving forward, and perhaps when those fundamental qualities have improved, I would take another look.

Lastly, here is a link to a Google Sheets file with any significant data from previous reports compiled for cross-comparative purposes. I will keep this updated as I continue to write these reports.

I hope this report has proved insightful and that you’ve enjoyed the read! Please do feel free to leave any questions in the Comments, and I’ll answer them as best I can.


If you’ve enjoyed this post and want to receive new posts straight to your inbox, I’ve set up a RSS-to-Email feed that will be sent out weekly; every Monday, 12pm. Just submit your email and I’ll make sure you’re included in the list. Cheers.

Coin Report #12: Trittium

N.B: In the spirit of full transparency, the following Coin Report on Trittium is a Sponsored Post.

Welcome to the twelfth Coin Report. In today’s report, I will be assessing the fundamental and technical strengths and weaknesses of Trittium. This will comprise of an analysis of a number of significant metrics, an evaluation of the project’s community and development and an overview of its price-history. The report will conclude with a grading out of 10. I hope you enjoy the read!

Introduction

Prior to the Trittium team getting in touch to commission this report, I had not heard of the project. Having now completed my research, I am surprised I had not, given the number of areas of personal interest the project is looking to find success in. Of all coins I have written reports for, I believe Trittium is the second-smallest in terms of Network Value (market cap), only larger than Altbet; a fact that will be of some significance as we discuss the various strengths and shortcomings of the project.

I hope this report will prove objective where it must be and fair on more subjective matters. For those who’d like to learn a little more about Trittium prior to reading this report, here are some primary links:


Fundamental

General:

Name: Trittium

Ticker: TRTT

Algorithm: XEVAN

Sector: Collateralised Loans & Masternode Hosting Platform

Exchanges: CryptoBridge, CoinExchange & Graviex

Launch Overview

Trittium was launched in May 2018, operating on the XEVAN algorithm with a dual Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanism. The Proof-of-Work stage was only in operating for ~800 blocks, and the coin is now exclusively Proof-of-Stake, alongside a network of masternodes. There was a premine of 1.45mn TRTT, equating to 1.04% of the maximum supply; this has now been either used in development or burned, with zero remaining. The project was launched with private investor funding of 7.5 BTC, and there was no public ICO.

Price-History Overview

As Trittium is less than 12 months old, there is very little price-history for reference. However, TRTT did make an all-time high of $0.11 against the Dollar in June 2018, and ~1400 satoshis against BTC around the same time. Price has since experienced a bear market in line with macro market conditions, and is currently trading over 90% below these highs.

Project Overview

Trittium is looking to build a financial services ecosystem, with a particular focus on collateralised loans.

As per the abstract of their whitepaper:

“The next step in evolution of the private and commercial loan industry, built on top of blockchain technology.”

This is a very competitive industry, even amongst cryptocurrencies. The majority of collateralised loan platforms being built, however, are heavily reliant on ICO funding; let’s see how Trittium is doing sans-ICO


Metric Analysis:

Below are listed a number of important metrics, all of which are accurate as of 8th February 2019. For anyone reading this who has yet to read a Coin Report, it might be worth reading this section of the first report, where any potentially unfamiliar terms are explained. For any terms or metrics specific to this post, I will provide explanations besides the figures.

Metrics:

General:

Price: $0.009 (253 satoshis)

Exchange Volume: $746

Circulating Supply: 110,098,440 TRTT

Total Supply: 110,792,317 TRTT

Maximum Supply: 140,000,000 TRTT

% of Max. Supply Minted: 79.14%

Network Value: $955,980 (278.55 BTC)

Network Value at Max. Supply: $1.216mn

Category: Lowcap

Exchange Volume-to-Network Value: 0.08%

Average Price (30-Day): $0.008

Average Exchange Volume (30-Day): $1,701

Average Network Value (30-Day): $840,608

Average Exchange Volume (30-Day)-to-Network Value: 0.2%

Volatility* (30-Day): -0.0599

Average Daily On-Chain Transactions** (24H): 400

Average Daily Transactional Value*** (24H): $31,720 (source)

NVT**** (24H): 30.14

% Price Change USD (30-Day): +34.1%

% Price Change USD (1-Year): N/A

USD All-Time High: $0.11

% From USD All-Time High: -92%

Premine % of Max. Supply: 1.04%

Premine Location: Zero remaining (burned or used in development)

Liquidity (calculated as the sum of BTC in the buy-side with 10% of current price across all exchanges): 0.225 BTC

Liquidity-to-Network Value %: 0.08%

Amount Available on Exchanges: 676,416 TRTT

% of Circulating Supply Available on Exchanges:  0.61%

*Volatility is calculated by taking the average price over the given time-period, calculating the difference between it and the highest price and it and the lowest price over that same time-period, and multiplying those figures together. The closer to 0, the less volatility during that period, and vice-versa. Read this for more on volatility.

**Average Daily On-Chain Transactions: This is usually calculated by taking the total number of transactions over the previous 30 days and dividing it by 30. However, as the Trittium block explorer has limited functionality, and I was only able to find data for the past 100 transactions, the calculations are even less refined. These 100 transactions took place over almost exactly 6 hours; as such, I simply multiplied this by 4 to find an expected figure for 24 hours. This is obviously far less useful than if I had access to 30 days of data, as the past 6 hours of data could be an anomaly.

***Transactional Value in $ is calculated by taking the daily transactional value in TRTT and multiplying it by price.

****NVT is calculated by dividing the Network Value by the Average Daily Transactional Value. See here for more on NVT.

Supply Emission & Inflation:

Block Reward Schedule: Current block reward is 40 TRTT. This reward stage will last for 62375 more blocks (~43.3 days). After this, the reward halves to 20 TRTT for 525,599 blocks (~1 year). 1,440 blocks minted daily.

Average Block Time: 60 seconds

Current Block Height: 397614

Annual Supply Emission*: 11,759,500 TRTT (29.75 BTC at current prices)

Annual Inflation Rate: 10.68%

Circulating Supply in 365 Days: 121,857,940 TRTT

*Annual Supply Emission is calculated as: (62,375 * 40) + (463,225 * 20)

Staking & Masternodes:

Network Staking Weight: N/A

Staking ROI (Annual)*: 5.06% (Minimum)

Masternode Collateral Size: 50,000 TRTT

Masternode Price: $434

Masternode Count: 1272

Masternode Count Growth (30-Day): -3.93%

Supply Locked in Masternodes: 63,600,000 TRTT

Masternode ROI (Annual)**:  14.79%

Masternode Reward / Block Reward: 80%

Masternode Network Value $552,236

MNV / Network Value:  57.77%

*To calculate minimum annual staking ROI: (Annual Supply Emission * (Stake Reward / Block Reward)) / (Circulating Supply – Supply Locked in Masternodes) = (11,759,500 *0.2) / 46,498,440 = 5.06%

**To calculate annual masternode ROI based on current active masternodes: (Annual Supply Emission * (Masternode Reward / Block Reward)) / Supply Locked in Masternodes: (11,759,500 * 0.8) / 63,600,000 = 14.79%

Distribution:

Address Count: N/A

Supply Held By Top 10 Addresses: 10.76%

Supply Held By Top 20 Addresses: 15.38%

Supply Held By Top 100 Addresses: 25.46%

Inactive Address Count in Top 20 (30 Days of No Activity): 5

Analysis:

With that mountain of metrics identified, perhaps we should delve a little deeper and unearth what we can about Trittium. Given that its primary aim of being used for collateralised loans is not yet being fulfilled (as I’ll dig into later), Trittium’s capacity as both a masternode itself and a masternode platform must be considered. In its use on the masternode platform, TRTT functions as a means-of-payment; as such, transactional metrics are of some significance.

Unfortunately, the Trittium block explorer has limited functionality; whilst it does provide data for the last 100 transactions, this is the maximum available. In the case of Trittium, these 100 transactions took place over a period of 6 hours, hence only crude calculations concerning transactions could be made.

I used the 6 hours-worth of data and multiplied the figures by 4 to find a possible figure for a day’s-worth of transactions. This is about as unrefined a methodology as it gets, as those 6 hours could well have been an anomaly; ideally, I like 30 days-worth of data for these calculations to have any weight. Regardless, this put Trittium’s daily transactions at ~400. Further, 24H on-chain transactional value amounted to $31,720, giving Trittium a NVT of 30.14. Whilst this is a strong figure (Bitcoin’s NVT is usually over 100; and yes, I am well aware this is a false comparison given the respective sizes of the networks), it isn’t a reliable one, as there simply wasn’t enough data to confirm this over any significant period of time. If, however, TRTT experienced a similar value of transactions daily for a month, that would indeed be promising.

For the rest of this section, I’ll run through the remaining General metrics, before moving onto Supply Emission & Inflation, the all-important masternodes, and conclude with an evaluation of Trittium’s Distribution.

Firstly, let’s take a look at the metrics related to supply and demand:

Trittium has Liquidity of 0.225 BTC, equating to 0.08% of its Network Value. For context, this places it joint-lowest amongst previous reports with Bismuth; a poor showing of demand at current prices. Whilst this can, in part, be attributed to Trittium’s current exchange listings, all of which are relatively low volume, it is nonetheless not a particularly strong show of buy support; coins with similar exchange listings, like Altbet, had greater Liquidity.

But what about its supply? Well, ~675k TRTT is currently available for purchase on those exchanges, equating to 0.61% of circulating supply. This places it as the strongest of the coins previously reported on, with less supply available than Altbet, which is the second-strongest on this metric. This is a conflicting picture being painted; on the one hand, we find that buy support at current prices is very low, but that sellers are also in limited supply. This is perhaps explained by the incentives created to hold Trittium, as we will come to a little later…

Now, let’s take a look at Trittium’s volatility over the past 30 days, which comes in at -0.05987; this is less volatility than was experienced by MonetaryUnit or Altbet, but greater than that experienced by CloakCoin.

I’d like to highlight the metrics relating to price next, as these are somewhat relevant to the aforementioned volatility. Trittium has experienced a 34.1% surge over the past month, likely accounting for the volatility, but remains 92% below its all-time high of $0.11 against the dollar. Perhaps this is a buying opportunity? We won’t know for certain until the fundamentals have been fully evaluated.

To conclude analysis of these General metrics, let’s examine volume:

Firstly, the volume is abysmal in real-terms. $746 was traded over the past 24 hours and the average volume for the past month is $1,701. Again, this is undoubtedly in part a symptom of the low-volume exchange listings, but there are coins on these exchanges experiencing much more volume, so this is no excuse.

Trittium’s 24H Exchange Volume equates to 0.08% of its Network Value, and its Average Exchange Volume equates to 0.2% of its Average Network Value; the former of these places Trittium bottom in the table, and the latter places it third-from-bottom. I know market conditions at present aren’t particularly optimal for smaller, newer projects on small exchanges, but this isn’t great. It indicates that speculative interest in TRTT, the coin, is low; contrasting against the relatively high value of on-chain transactions.

But what relationship does this degree of exchange-traded volume have with Trittium’s Supply Emission & Inflation?

Well, the first point to note is that Trittium, despite being less than a year old, has already minted almost 80% of its maximum supply, indicating that inflation will likely be quite low.

In fact, with block times of 1 minute – thus 525,600 blocks minted annually – and a current block reward of 40 TRTT (halving to 20 in just over a month), Trittium will have ~11.75mn minted over the next 365 days, or 29.75 BTC of supply emission at current prices. This gives Trittium an annual inflation rate of 10.68%. Not bad at all.

Delving a little deeper, we can work out using the above figures that, on average, ~32k TRTT will be minted daily, or 0.08 BTC. This is roughly $280 of daily supply emission. All of a sudden, the weak volume metrics don’t look quite as rough.

Given this amount of supply emission, Trittium’s 24H volume is 2.66x greater and its average volume is over 6x greater. This, whilst not quite as strong as similar volume-to-emission ratios of other coins, is plenty to suggest that TRTT should be able to sustain current prices on current volume. Further, Trittium’s Liquidity of 0.225 BTC is 2.76x greater than average daily supply emission.

Now, let us move on to masternodes – a primary feature of the Trittium project:

Firstly, it is important to mention that staking is also a feature for TRTT, with 20% of block rewards going to stakers. Whilst I could not determine network staking weight due to the lack of functionality on the Trittium block explorer, I calculated that the minimum annual ROI for stakers would be 5.06% if all circulating supply minus that locked in masternodes was being staked. This is quite a low return, especially since annual inflation is around twice that.

Regarding masternodes, the first thing to mention is that there are 1272 active nodes, with a decline in the count of 3.93% over the past month. This is, in essence, a stable network. With masternode collateral set at 50,000 TRTT, this equates to 63.6mn TRTT locked in masternodes, giving holders an annual ROI of 14.79%. Whilst not a huge ROI, this more than covers inflation, and is thus a better choice for investors than staking.

Trittium’s Masternode Network Value is $552,236 at current prices, equating to 57.77% of its Network Value. This is indicative of a strong masternode network.

Lastly, we come to Distribution:

Here, Trittium is rather strong, with an impressive degree of supply decentralisation. The top 10 richest address control 10.76% of the circulating supply; the top 20 control 15.38%; and the top 100 control 25.46%. This places Trittium fourth in the decentralisation of supply amongst the top 100 addresses, behind only Altbet, Bulwark and ALQO.

Of the top 20 addresses, 5 have been inactive over the past 30 days. And of the remaining 15, addresses, 0 addresses are in active distribution; a good sign for those looking to buy. 13 of these addresses are either accumulating stake rewards or masternode rewards, and 1 address added 200,000 TRTT to his position this month. Promising.

And that concludes this section on Metric Analysis. Onto the Trittium Community:


Community:

There are two primary aspects of community analysis: social media presence and Bitcointalk threads. I’ll begin with the former before moving on to the latter.

Social Media:

Concerning social media presence, there are four main platforms to examine: Twitter, Facebook, Telegram and Discord.

Trittium is present on Twitter and Discord. To begin with, let’s look at the various social metrics that I calculated from the Trittium Twitter account:

Twitter Followers: 1,870

Tweets: 553

Average Twitter Engagement: 0.76%

As usual, I will be using RivalIQ‘s social benchmark report for evaluation purposes.

Twitter:

As is expressed in the report, the average engagement rate on Twitter across all industries is 0.046%, and the average in the Media industry is 0.013%; Trittium’s engagement rate of 0.76% is 16.5x greater than the former and 58.5x greater than the latter. However, given that Trittium has 1,870 followers on Twitter, I would have expected the engagement rate to be even higher. For context, Altbet, which has ~1,700 followers, had an engagement rate of 3.1%; over 4x greater than that of Trittium. That being said, of all coins previously reported on, Trittium places in the middle of the pack for engagement on Twitter.

Discord:

Moving onto Discord, the situation is rather different, with a much larger group of 5,908 members here. Usually, Twitter is the largest audience for cryptocurrencies, so I am surprised to find such a large disparity between their Discord group and their Twitter account.

My first impressions when joining the group were that it contained the most channels I’ve ever seen, with a dedicated channel for all manner of relevant topics to the project. This is a good start.

Beginning with Announcements, this is updated almost every other day, with this commitment to updates being evident over several months. I like that the team are keen to keep the community informed.

Over the past two weeks in this channel, there are: development updates on daily business; issues solved with the project; coin burn announcements; listings of coins to the Trittium platform; audience analytics provided for Twitter; a burn of 200,000 TRTT; information on the 25% revenue share that will be implemented for masternode holders (25% of total revenues will be burned and 50% will go towards funding); and a graphic design contest currently underway. Useful stuff to know for the potential investor.

General, as the most active channel, has around 60 individuals involved in conversation over the past 7 days, equating to about 1% engagement. There is a lot of conversation concerning the platform itself, which is great to see, as it shows a keen interest in the use-cases of the project and not just speculative interest. There is also a lot of team-led development discussion, updates provided about the daily ongoings, plus very fast replies from the team to any community suggestions (of which there are quite a few) and any issues. This is all promising stuff.

The most interesting points here were those concerning reward reinvestment on the masternode platform, where any masternode rewards can be automatically reinvested on the platform to benefit from compound interest. Also the discussion around so-called PoCon (Proof-of-Consumption), which I will dig into in the Development section of this report, was very promising. In essence, it is the novel consensus mechanism designed by Trittium to reward holders with revenue share. A concluding thought on the General channel was that there were some maintenance-related issues evident, with a number of occasions where maintenance had to be scheduled over a short period of time. Nothing major, however.

FAQ and Official Links are two highly informative and comprehensive channels, full of useful material for new users, ensuring accessibility. What We Are Working On is an announcements-esque channel, though less frequently updated but with far more detail, including development screenshots etc. In this channel, I discovered that the remaining premine was recently burned. Another interesting channel is Budget, in which the community is provided regular updates on expenses and revenues of the project.

In general, this degree of transparency and consistency in providing updates is rare, and it’s a great sign on the team’s part.

BitcoinTalk:

The Trittium BitcoinTalk thread was created on May 6th, 2018, and has since generated 369 posts spanning 19 pages in 278 days. This equates to 1.33 post per day, on average, which is not particularly active. However, in the past 90 days, the thread has had 18 posts via 10 individual posters, giving an average of 0.2 posts per day; a massive decline in engagement.

Regarding the content of the thread, the announcement page itself is in dire need of copy-editing. We are told that the project was launched with the help of private investment, to the tune of 7.5 BTC, and thus no public ICO took place.

There are very regular updates provided by the team; so regular, in fact, that moderators deleted their posts due to too many consecutive posts by one individual poster (what a ridiculous policy). These updates are supplemented by links to more detailed weekly reports from their Medium blog. On the team’s side, all looks as it should, but it seems the curse of low engagement has followed through from Twitter to BitcoinTalk, with too few replies and questions being posted by those outside of the team.


Development:

For the following Development analysis, I will be evaluating project leadership, the website, the roadmap, the whitepaper, the wallets and, in conclusion, providing a general overview:

Project Leadership:

There are 6 core team members listed on the website, 2 of which are founders with decades of cumulative experience in development. There is also a marketing director with 8 years of experience, and a consultant, an intern and a quality assurance advisor. Overall, the team seems solid; balanced and experienced.

Website:

https://trittium.cc/

The website is professional in design, with very clean and sleek UI/UX. It is well-branded and features a clear navigation menu. All social links are accessible and the copy is simple, concise and informative.

There is a native blog that is meant to be updated weekly with reports, but this seems to have been neglected since November; instead, the Medium blog is regularly updated. Some consistency here would be great, as the optimal user experience would not require them to leave the website in order to remain informed.

On the homepage, we can find benefits of the Trittium platform highlighted for both, borrowers, and lenders; plus there are details on the three plans available (though not actually live yet, as the secured loans platform is yet to be released) for borrowers.

Most importantly, there is a Current Services page, with important info on Trittium’s 4 main services: TrttAuth (a single sign-in service to be used for all other services); TrttWallets (combining web and mobile wallets for seamless transactions; TrttNodes (the masternode hosting platform with reward reinvestment and revenue share schemes); and TrttLoans (the upcoming collateralised loans platform).

I did find that links to the platform itself were difficult to find, and having mentioned this to the team, I found out that the entire website and platform is currently being redesigned with releases imminent. I was given a sneak preview, and the platform looks superb; very clean and easy-to-navigate. The website has also been improved, with clearer navigation to the platform, and a User Account panel on the homepage.

Roadmap:

https://trittium.cc/#roadmap

Whilst it is native to the website’s homepage, the roadmap isn’t designed particularly well. There is, however, a full history of goals and achievements, starting in Q2 2018, but these are not all that specific or detailed; I’d like to see some Further Info links to allow new users to better grasp progress. In general, it just needs to be more visually appealing and easy to read, with all sections fleshed out a little.

Concerning the achievements themselves:

Q2 2018: Project launch; website release; growth campaigns; desktop wallets; masternode stats; websites listings; ad campaign; exchange listing; whitepaper release; MVP release.

Q3 2018: This section states that some goals are in progress, so perhaps the team are running a little behind on expectations.

In Progress: iOS app; licence for storing crypto; licence for crypto-to-fiat transactions.

Completed: Fiat gateway; web wallet; Android wallet; CoinMarketCap listing; masternode hosting listing; PoCon conception; incorporation of Trittium;
KYD verification; whitepaper update.

Q4 2018:

In Progress: The first three In Progress items from Q3 are still so, and the Trittium collateralised loans Beta release is also in development.

Completed: Website redesign; TrttAuth release and integration; TrttNodes release.

Q1 2019:

In Progress: All four items from Q4 (the team are clearly a little behind schedule with these); TrttNodes redesign; wallet redesigns; marketing campaigns; new exchange listings.

The roadmap itself states that this quarter is “the most important stage of Trittium project development.” This is likely due to the Beta launch of the collateralised loans platform.

Overall, the roadmap is ambitious but perhaps this ambition is causing delays in the schedule.

Whitepaper:

https://trittium.cc/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Trittium-2.pdf

The whitepaper is 13 pages in length, which is about optimum, in my opinion. The primary aim is stated in the abstract:

“The next step in evolution of the private and commercial loan industry, built on top of blockchain technology.”

As stated above, collateralized secured loans are the primary focus. We are given a short summary of the history of lending, giving some context to the project. The prose is accessible and actually quite enjoyable to read; it’s not dry, like many whitepapers can be.

This section is followed by a summary of the problems with current lending practices, of which we are told about the broken credit score system that excludes many individuals, and is fundamentally inadequate due to its one-size-fits-all policy.

Regarding types of loans currently available on the market, we have unsecured, secured and collateralised. Trittium will focus on the latter due to market saturation of the former two. There are graphics provided here to ensure accessibility for those unfamiliar with these processes. The argument made is that the divisibility of cryptocurrencies allows for more flexible collateralised loans. TRTT is to be used as collateral.

The following section is titled Why blockchain for loans? Here, it is acknowledged that Trittium isn’t the first crypto-based collateralised loans platform but it is stated that “it will be a leader among them.” This section could have gone into greater depth on the benefits of using a cryptocurrency for this purpose – an opportunity missed, here. It does mention that cryptocurrencies remove barriers to entry and reduce costs.

The loan opportunities available on the Trittium platform are then depicted, with three plan types (Base, Plus and Premium). Each plan has different costs and benefits, but primarily focus on the customisable nature of the loan and the flexibility of term lengths.

Importantly for us speculators, there is a section on Trittium’s revenue opportunities. Here, we are told that the team will focus on continually adding revenue streams to the Trittium ecosystem. The platform will receive revenue from: loan terms; coin integrations to Trittium platform; transaction fees; white-label mobile and web wallet sales; masternode hosting; and debit cards.

How does this translate into value generated for buyers of TRTT? This is where so-called PoCon (Proof of Consumption) comes into play.

PoCon is a consensus mechanism scheme designed by Trittium to reward holders via revenue share through block rewards. A brief description is provided to explain this process more clearly:

All revenue from the platform will be converted into TRTT. This will then be segmented in predetermined percentages between the team, the burn mechanism and the Trittium holders (masternode operators and stakers).

For more on PoCon, read here.

Overall, the whitepaper is highly informative and accessible regarding the collateralised loans platform and the importance of PoCon to investors, but it does miss out general information about the coin itself and other expected material in a whitepaper.

Wallets:

There are Windows, Mac and Linux wallets available, plus an Android wallet for mobiles and a web wallet. The iOS wallet is in development.

General:

One thing I’d like to highlight in this conclusion of the fundamental analysis is the revenue share scheme and how this could play out in terms of value generation for buyers:

Using the figure of 25% revenue share, if the Trittium ecosystem generates, for example, $10,000 a month in revenue for the first year, this would equate to $30,000 of annual revenue share. Split between the 1272 current active masternodes, this gives each masternode holder $23.58 of annual revenue share; a 5.43% dividend of the $434.15 cost of buying a masternode.

Raise this to $25,000 a month in revenue, and we get $75,000 of annual revenue share. Split between 1272 masternodes, each holder receives $58.96; a 13.58% dividend. Not bad value at all.

This is neglecting the added incentive of an equal percentage of revenue being used towards buy-back-and-burns.


Technical

There is, in truth, little to say about Trittium’s price-history, given that the coin has only been in existence for around 9 months.

That said, the local high set in August led to price following suit with the rest of the market and bleeding out for several months, eventually finding a bottom above 100 satoshis. Price remained range-bound here for around 6 weeks, before breaking out above range resistance, with it becoming a new level of support at 150 satoshis. We have since seen an uptrend form, with a series of higher-lows over the past 6 weeks, but price is struggling to breakout above ~250-satoshi resistance (a signficant historical level).

Regarding valuation, the coin remains below a $1mn Network Value, with plenty of use-cases being developed, and, most importantly, low inflation for the remainder of its existence. With a maximum Network Value of around $1.2mn at current prices, I would find it difficult to disagree with the proposition that buyers here will be rewarded over time; provided that the team continues to deliver and that new exchange listings are established. Further, the revenue share scheme is genuine value generation for buyers, and thus a bet on prices being higher in ~12 months is likely a high-probability bet. There are a lot of projects valued far higher and doing far less.


Conclusion

This report is now approaching 5,000 words, and it is time to draw it to a close.

My final grading for Trittium is 7 out of 10. Whilst the project is certainly strong (particularly for one without ICO funding and less than a year old) in its development, and has a working product and value propositions for users, it is yet to launch its primary platform; the secured loans service. Further, it is yet to garner the engagement and volume required for a higher grading.

Lastly, here is a link to a Google Sheets file with any significant data from previous reports compiled for cross-comparative purposes. I will keep this updated as I continue to write these reports.

I hope this report has proved insightful and that you’ve enjoyed the read! Please do feel free to leave any questions in the Comments, and I’ll answer them as best I can.


If you’ve enjoyed this post and want to receive new posts straight to your inbox, I’ve set up a RSS-to-Email feed that will be sent out weekly; every Monday, 12pm. Just submit your email and I’ll make sure you’re included in the list. Cheers.

Coin Report #11: CloakCoin

N.B: In the spirit of full transparency, the following Coin Report on CloakCoin is a Sponsored Post.

Welcome to the eleventh Coin Report. In today’s report, I will be assessing the fundamental and technical strengths and weaknesses of CloakCoin. This will comprise of an analysis of a number of significant metrics, an evaluation of the project’s community and development and an overview of its price-history. The report will conclude with a grading out of 10. I hope you enjoy the read!

Introduction

CloakCoin may well be the most established coin of all previously reported on, and their decision to approach me for this report led to a great deal of nostalgia. In fact, I fondly (or not so fondly, given the sleepless nights and heart palpitations) remember trading CLOAK on Mintpal. That’s right – Mintpal. For those readers unfamiliar with Mintpal, it was perhaps the greatest exchange in the history of altcoin trading; a prime shitcoin casino. I talk at length about the rollercoaster journey facilitated by Mintpal in my book, but for now it will suffice to say that those were tumultuous times and I had experience trading CLOAK from back then.

The project seems to have undergone significant, fundamental changes since 2014 and has undoubtedly cemented itself amongst the minority of strong brands in the space. The purpose of this report is to determine where it stands now; what its strengths are; where it has room for improvement; and, most importantly as speculators, whether there is an opportunity here.

I hope this eleventh Coin Report will prove objective where it must be and fair on more subjective matters. For those who’d like to learn a little more about CloakCoin prior to reading on, here are some primary links:


Fundamental

General:

Name: CloakCoin

Ticker: CLOAK

Algorithm: X13 (now pure Proof-of-Stake)

Sector: Privacy

Exchanges: Binance, Bittrex, Upbit, Livecoin & Mercatox

Launch Overview

CloakCoin was launched in June 2014, but due to rumours of a pump-and-dump scam and unattended development, it was abandoned. CLOAK then relaunched with a new team from the community in October 2014, operating on the X13 algorithm, with dual Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanisms. The coin is now exclusively Proof-of-Stake. There was zero premine or ICO, and CLOAK is expected to experience 6% annual inflation in perpetuity. This is important to note, as it will play a major part in our future discussions on supply emission.

Price-History Overview

As CloakCoin has been around for almost five years, there is a huge amount of price-history to dissect and analyse, and the Technical section of this report will reflect that. For now, it will suffice to say that CLOAK made its all-time high against the Dollar of $31.28 (according to CoinGecko) in January 2018. Its all-time high against Bitcoin was ~0.004 BTC in July 2017. Price has experienced multiple market cycles across timeframes, but is currently trading over 96% below its all-time high.

Project Overview

CloakCoin is a privacy coin through-and-through, with its ultimate goal stated in the first sentence of the abstract in its whitepaper:

“CloakCoin is a cryptocurrency designed to facilitate private, secure and untraceable decentralized transfers with Enigma.”

We’ll come onto Enigma in depth later on, but it is, in essence, the private payments processor that forms the core of the CloakCoin ecosystem.

Now, let’s crack on with some Metric Analysis:


Metric Analysis:

Below are listed a number of important metrics, all of which are accurate as of 3rd February 2019. For anyone reading this who has yet to read a Coin Report, it might be worth reading this section of the first report, where any potentially unfamiliar terms are explained. For any terms or metrics specific to this post, I will provide explanations besides the figures.

Metrics:

General:

Price: $1.09 (31322 satoshis)

Exchange Volume: $97,741

Circulating Supply: 5,250,162 CLOAK

Total Supply: 5,250,162 CLOAK

Maximum Supply: 7,025,901 CLOAK (calculated as supply in 5 years, as there is theoretically no maximum supply)

% of Max. Supply Minted: 74.73%

Network Value: $5.721mn (1644.46 BTC)

Network Value at Max. Supply: $7.656mn

Category: Midcap

Exchange Volume-to-Network Value: 1.71%

Average Price (30-Day): $1.146

Average Exchange Volume (30-Day): $298,495

Average Network Value (30-Day): $6.005mn

Average Exchange Volume (30-Day)-to-Network Value: 4.97%

Volatility* (30-Day): -0.0083

Average Daily On-Chain Transactions (30-Day): 57

Average Daily Transactional Value** (30-Day): $344,563 (source)

NVT*** (30-Day): 16.60

% Price Change USD (30-Day): -4.3%

% Price Change USD (1-Year): -87.9%

USD All-Time High: $31.28

% From USD All-Time High: -96.5%

Premine % of Max. Supply: 0%

Premine Location: N/A

Liquidity (calculated as the sum of BTC in the buy-side with 10% of current price across all exchanges): 14.031 BTC

Liquidity-to-Network Value %: 0.85%

Amount Available on Exchanges: 107,613 CLOAK

% of Circulating Supply Available on Exchanges: 2.05%

*Volatility is calculated by taking the average price over the given time-period, calculating the difference between it and the highest price and it and the lowest price over that same time-period, and multiplying those figures together. The closer to 0, the less volatility during that period, and vice-versa. Read this for more on volatility.

**Transactional Value in $ is calculated by taking the average daily transactional value in CLOAK and multiplying it by the average price for the past 30 days. Of course, as CloakCoin is a privacy-enabled cryptocurrency, this figure cannot be completely accurate, as some transactional value will be obscured by Enigma and thus not included in the data.

***NVT is calculated by dividing the Network Value by the Average Daily Transactional Value. See here for more on NVT.

Supply Emission & Inflation:

Block Reward Schedule: 6% annual inflation in perpetuity. Supply emission changes with each block.

Average Block Time: 60 Seconds

Current Block Height: 2440429

Annual Supply Emission: 315,009 CLOAK (98.67 BTC at current prices)

Annual Inflation Rate: 6%

Circulating Supply in 365 Days: 5,565,171 CLOAK

Staking & Masternodes:

Network Staking Weight: 610,441 CLOAK (source)

Staking ROI (Annual): 51.6%*

Masternode Collateral Size:  N/A

Masternode Price: N/A

Masternode Count: N/A

Masternode Count Growth (30-Day): N/A

Supply Locked in Masternodes: N/A

Masternode ROI (Annual): N/A

Masternode Reward / Block Reward: N/A

Masternode Network ValueN/A

MNV / Network Value: N/A

*To calculate annual staking ROI: (Annual Supply Emission * (Stake Reward / Block Reward)) / Network Staking Weight = 315,009 / 610,441 = 51.6%

Distribution:

Address Count: 11820

Supply Held By Top 10 Addresses: 41.25%*

Supply Held By Top 20 Addresses: 50.37%

Supply Held By Top 100 Addresses: 78.38%

Inactive Address Count in Top 20 (30 Days of No Activity): 7

*The richest address owns ~20% of the circulating supply, but is not tagged as an exchange-owned address, as is usually the case on Chainz explorers.

Analysis:

Right, there’s a lot here to unpack, but where to begin? Well, given CloakCoin’s prior mentioned primary aims of being used as a means-of-payment, metrics related to on-chain transactions are of significance.

As I noted in the footnote to the General sub-section, the usual issue for monitoring on-chain transactions for privacy coins is that the data is never complete by the very nature of the transactions. Despite this, there is a surprising conclusion to draw from the data available on CloakCoin…

According to the Chainz explorer, CLOAK is experiencing, on average, 57 daily transactions, equating to ~$344k of daily on-chain transactional value. This is very impressive, considering that it does not take into account Enigma transactions. Such transactional value gives CloakCoin a NVT of 16.6. For context, Bitcoin’s current NVT is 130. Of course, this is a crude comparison, but it serves our purposes of estimating that CloakCoin, at current prices, seems to be of fair value at the very least.

So, we’ve established that CLOAK fares well as a means-of-payment, but how does it fare elsewhere? I’ll begin with a run-through of the remaining General metrics, before moving on through the latter sub-sections, concluding with analysis of the CloakCoin rich-list.

The first metric that I’d like to highlight is the the Volatility of -0.0083. Of the previous coins that this has been calculated for (MonetaryUnit and Altbet), CloakCoin has been less volatile than both over the past 30 days by up to a factor of 10. This is reinforced by the fact that the average price for the past 30 days has been $1.146 (~5% above current prices of $1.09). This can be indicative of accumulation occuring at this price, but we can only confirm this by examining the rich-list and the chart.

Now, CloakCoin certainly seems to be stable of late, but how are its supply-and-demand-related metrics? Well, Liquidity of 14.031 BTC within 10% of current prices equates to 0.85% of Network Value. This is the highest degree of liquidity across all previous Coin Reports, as can be seen in the spreadsheet comparison of these metrics.

So, we can be sure there is demand at current prices, but what about supply? Having surveyed the orderbooks across all listed exchanges, there is around 107,613 CLOAK available to buy, which equates to 2.05% of the circulating supply. This places it in the middle of the pack relative to other coins for which this metric has been calculated, despite the fact that, unlike many of those coins, CloakCoin does not operate with a masternode network, and thus there are fewer incentives to hold. In light of this, I feel that both metrics relating to supply and demand are very promising.

Next, we should take a look at the all-time high of $31.28, as calculated by CoinGecko. This puts the current price of CloakCoin at a 96.5% discount,  which, if all other fundamental and technical analyses deems the project promising, is a serious speculative opportunity. We shall soon see…

Now, let’s take a look at what is usually the meatiest of subject matter within these metrics: Volume.

CloakCoin traded $97,741 of volume on exchanges over the past 24 hours, equating to 1.71% of its Network Value. Further, its Average Daily Volume for the past 30 days has been around $298k, equating to a massive 4.97% of its Average Network Value across the same period. This is highly indicative of significant interest. In fact, this is the highest Average EVNV of any coin I’ve previously reported on. Given current market conditions, I am impressed.

That concludes the General metrics. Now, let’s move onto Supply Emission & Inflation, taking a look, in particular, at the relationship between supply emission and volume:

The supply emission of CloakCoin is as straightforward as it gets: 6% annual inflation, in perpetuity. This is the 4th-lowest inflation of all previously reported on coins, behind only ALQO, GeoCoin and Covesting. It equates to 315,009 CLOAK over the next year, which is around 98.67 BTC at current prices.

Using these figures, we can calculate that average daily supply emission is 0.27 BTC at current prices, or a little under $1000-worth. CloakCoin’s Exchange Volume of ~$98k covers this emission by over 9800%. Further, its Average Exchange Volume of ~$299k covers the daily emission by over 29900%. In short, there is absolutely zero indication that CloakCoin cannot sustain current prices, even if all newly-minted supply was dumped at market daily. Lastly, we take into consideration the Liquidity of over 14 BTC, daily supply emission is covered almost 52x by buy support within 10% of current prices.

Moving onto metrics related to staking, thanks to the transparency of the Chainz explorer, we can determine Network Staking Weight for CloakCoin to be 610,441 CLOAK. Using this figure in conjunction with the annual supply emission of 315,009 CLOAK and the fact that supply is minted purely via Proof-of-Stake, the annual staking ROI can be calculated at 51.6%. This is a huge incentive to stake CloakCoin, given that annual inflation is only 6%.

To conclude this lengthy section, let’s take a look at Distribution:

Well, whilst CloakCoin seems to have shown immense strength thus far in almost all metrics, they do fall short of their decentralization aim.

The top 10 richest addresses, according to the Chainz explorer, possess 41.25% of the circulating supply, with the richest of these owning ~20%. The top 20 own 50.37% and the top 100 own 78.38%, despite there being 11,820 individual addresses on the network.

Now, usually these larger address are tagged as being exchange-owned on Chainz, but this isn’t the case here and so we cannot be certain. It is, however, likely that this is cold storage for either Binance or Bittrex.

Let’s dissect these top addresses:

Of the top 20, 7 addresses have been inactive for over 30 days. Of the remaining 13 addresses, zero are distributing, with the vast majority either staking their positions or actively adding to positions. This is revealing, and confirms earlier suspicions that there is accumulation taking place at current prices.

That concludes the Metric Analysis; onto the CloakCoin Community:


Community:

There are two primary aspects of community analysis: social media presence and Bitcointalk threads. I’ll begin with the former before moving on to the latter.

Social Media:

Concerning social media presence, there are four main platforms to examine: Twitter, Facebook, Telegram and Discord.

CloakCoin is present on all platforms except Discord. To begin, let’s look at the various social metrics that I calculated from the CloakCoin Twitter and Facebook accounts:

Twitter Followers: 18084

Tweets: 1294

Average Twitter Engagement: 0.23%

Facebook Likes: 7282

Facebook Posts (30-Day): 38

Average Facebook Engagement: 0.07%

As usual, I will be using RivalIQ‘s social benchmark report for evaluation purposes.

Twitter:

As is expressed in this report, the average engagement rate on Twitter across all industries is 0.046%; CloakCoin has an engagement rate that is 5x greater. Further, the average engagement rate for the Media industry (the most similar industry in the report) is 0.013%; CloakCoin’s is 17.69x greater. This is despite CloakCoin’s relatively large following of over 18,000. which is the largest of all coins previously reported on. However, whilst impressive relative to global benchmarks, CloakCoin’s Twitter engagement isn’t particularly impressive against other cryptocurrencies: in fact, it is the 3rd-lowest level of engagement of previous Coin Reports.

Facebook:

Regarding Facebook, it is great to see that CloakCoin do not neglect their page, unlike many projects that focus their social efforts exclusively on Twitter. The page has a strong following of over 7,000 and the team post at least once a day. That said, the engagement rate is a measly 0.07%, which below the cross-industry average of 0.16%, below the Media industry average of 0.08%, and equal-lowest with GeoCoin of all coins reported on (that actually have a Facebook page). These levels of engagement are underwhelming, especially given that CloakCoin has been around since 2014.

Telegram:

Now, moving onto Telegram, CloakCoin has 2658 members in its group, and seems to use Telegram as the community’s primary place-of-discussion, where other projects seem to rely on Discord.

Over the past week, there have been over 50 members involved in discussion, equating to an engagement rate of around 1.88%. The discussion occurs daily and is fairly active but, given that this is the primary forum for discussion, I am surprised it is not more active.

There is a lot of conversation around Enigma and its privacy advantages; support queries are responded to within minutes, usually; important resources are linked and tend to be posted daily, ensuring accessibility for new users; there is a separate Telegram group for price discussion (good idea); and there is some talk on the Fake Stake vulnerability and the fact that CloakCoin is unaffected.

With regards to interesting information discovered in the chat, I found promotional videos for the coin translated in over 10 languages; a partnership with OpenSubtitles, who now accept CLOAK as payment; the team travelled to the Binance Blockchain Conference to further awareness for the project and network; and a lot of smaller, independent retailers seem to be accepting CloakCoin on a near-daily basis.

Overall, the group is solid but a little underwhelming, given the scope of the CloakCoin audience across platforms and the fact that it is a well-established brand in the space. I would have liked to have seen more community-led discussion around the development and future of the project.

BitcoinTalk:

The CloakCoin BitcoinTalk thread was created on October 14th, 2014, and has since generated 10572 posts spanning 529 pages in 1575 days. This equates to 6.71 post per day, on average. However, in the past 90 days, the thread has had 65 posts via 16 individual posters, giving an average of 0.72 posts per day; a massive decline in engagement of late.

This is perhaps a symptom of the bear market, as the thread shows no evidence of a lack of commitment on the part of the CloakCoin team in keeping the community informed. In fact, most of those 65 posts in the past 3 months have been team-led, with regular, detailed updates provided by the numerous ‘Cloak Co-ordinators’. These are individuals who work on tasks for the CloakCoin project in different regions across the globe; I like that this is the approach taken, as there are undoubtedly different marketing requirements in different locations. The slight worry is that there is so little community-led discussion in the thread of late (a recurring theme).

Regarding the content of the thread, I found that CloakCoin have partnered with CoinTree, facilitating payment of household bills in CLOAK for Australians. There is a high level of commitment evident to growing adoption of CloakCoin as a means-of-payment, with weekly updates on new vendors; most of these are small, but this is good to see. The obvious next step would be landing a larger, perhaps publicly-known retailer to accept CLOAK payments. As a side note, CLOAK is also now available for purchase from General Bytes ATMs, which are available worldwide.

The thread also cements the brand identity of CLOAK, with reference made to CloakTV (the project’s YouTube channel), CloakWiki, DownUnder The Cloak (a blog series led by their Australian co-ordinator) and other such forms of content creation. I love the commitment shown here to keeping people informed in as many mediums as possible.

CloakTV is a particularly good idea. The channel currently has 530 subscribers but I believe there is a lot of potential here if the project was to go ‘all-in’ on creating video content here. Video garners greater engagement and thus enables greater community growth. Consider, at the extreme, what Gary Vaynerchuk has done with his YouTube series DailyVee; people love to watch engaging content that focuses on the daily goings-on of the things they have a passion for. If the CloakCoin team could commit to perhaps producing weekly updates (as opposed to the current monthly videos), comprising of camera footage of the team going about the development and propagation of the project, I believe this would be a winning strategy for improving their current engagement.


Development:

For the following Development analysis, I will be evaluating project leadership, the website, the roadmap, the whitepaper, the wallets and finally providing a general overview:

Project Leadership:

Regarding project leadership, there are 23 core members listed on the website, plus an additional 4 advisors. There 4 Github contributors.

Of the core team, there are a vast array of positions, with particularly strong experience in development and programming, as would be expected of a privacy-focused project. But there are also over 10 co-ordinators from different countries, including Australia, Italy, Russia, Netherlands, Brazil, Turkey and Vietnam. There is experience is graphic design and marketing, also. Overall, there is little to dislike here, as the team is large, strong and balanced.

Website:

https://www.cloakcoin.com

The first thing I’d like to say about the CloakCoin website is that it features strong branding, which is great to see. The copy is generally concise and highly informative, and the UI/UX is smooth and easy-to-navigate, with all relevant resources and social channels clearly linked (though, if the latter were also linked in the navigation menu, that would be even better, in my opinion).

There is a native IRC chatroom, a Wiki featuring all frequently asked questions (again allowing for ease-of-access) and a live chat for support queries (great idea, and not something I’ve seen on a website for a cryptocurrency before). Further, the website can be translated into numerous languages. All of this serves to ensure accessibility for all kinds of users.

The coin specification, key features and project overview all feature on the homepage, and there are separate pages detailing the various partnerships forged by the project and the near-80 different vendors currently accepting CLOAK. There is also a merchandise store – again, great for brand identity.

Roadmap:

https://www.cloakcoin.com/en/roadmap

One thing I’d like to flag before I get into dissecting the roadmap is that the introduction reads as broken English – perhaps revise this.

The roadmap itself, however, is everything one could hope for:

It is detailed without being overbearing, but with a full history of events all the way back to 2014. The goals are split by quarter each year and then split again within these by month, with more detail available for each specific goal with a link to further information. The checklist design also allows users to measure progress.

As the roadmap spans almost five years of material, I won’t run-through the whole thing here; instead, I’ll focus on Q1 2018 to the present day:

Q1 2018:

In January 2018, the project was audited by a third-party, NASDAQ-listed security firm, Cognosec, and the website was translated into multiple languages. In February, the whitepaper was revised and CLOAK was listed on OpenLedger, plus the Enigma wallet was updated. In March, the promotional video was released.

Q2 2018:

In April, CLOAK was listed on Binance and CryptoBridge. In May, multiple partnerships were announced and new co-ordinators joined the project. In June, there were more exchange listings, more co-ordinators onboard, a revised roadmap released and the Android wallet was updated.

Q3 2018:

In July, the CloakCoin audiobook was released, there were more exchange listings, the merchandise store was launched and the wallet was updated. In August, the first episode of Around The Cloak aired, the website was updated and the servers were relocated. In September, Netcoins listed CLOAK and more co-ordinators joined the project.

Q4 2018:

In October, there were even more exchange listings (recurring theme here) and a partnership with NEM was announced. In November, there were wallet updates, a new co-ordinator, video updates and, most importantly, integration of CLOAK into General Bytes ATMs. In December, CloakCoin partnered with CoinTree and MyCryptoCheckout, was listed on CryptoWolf and produced further video updates.

Unlike everything prior to 2019, the current year’s roadmap is split mostly by category of goal rather than by quarter, with all General and Marketing tasks in progress and several tasks from Development underway, including: the creation of a development fund and subsequent governance system; updates to the Enigma codebase; Android wallet development; web wallet development and migration to the v0.17.0.1 Bitcoin codebase.

The tasks to be begun include: hardware wallet integration; mobile wallet staking; iOS wallet development; a new security audit; UI/UX updates for the wallet and other general updates.

Overall, this is all quite impressive and there seems to me to be no gaps to be filled in here. Perhaps the only thing I can suggest, given the ambitions of the project, is to consider funding R&D for a CloakCoin own-brand hardware wallet; not only would it cement the coin amongst the leading projects in privacy, but it would provide an additional revenue stream to supplement the upcoming development fund.

Whitepaper:

https://www.cloakcoin.com/user/themes/g5_cloak/resources/CloakCoin_Whitepaper_v2.1.pdf

The whitepaper is around 24 pages in length and was revised in February 2018, so is perhaps a year out of date.

The primary aim is stated in the first sentence of the abstract:

“CloakCoin is a cryptocurrency designed to facilitate private, secure and untraceable decentralized transfers with Enigma.”

The document goes on to discuss the Enigma system at length, describing it as a payments system that facilitates private transactions on CLOAK’s network. It functions as a mixing system, incentivised by rewards given to those that enable ‘cloaked’ transactions.

Section 2 of the document goes into far more detail about this process, and though the material is somewhat technical, I was glad to find that it is written in mostly jargon-free, accessible prose, which breaks down the concepts and makes them understandable for less technical users.

The whitepaper then brings in the concept of CloakShield, which ensures data shared between nodes remains encrypted. This works in conjunction with Enigma and Onion Routing to ensure ultimate privacy for users.

Section 5 of the document talks about where Enigma will likely be heading in the future, with aims of improvement in the Proof-of-Stake system via removal of Coin Age and the possibility to use multiple Enigma transactions cloaked within one ‘super-transaction’, rather than the single transactions currently enabled.

Section 6 is a FAQ page, and within this you can find all relevant fees for operating using Enigma. The document concludes with references.

Now, whilst highly informative and accessible regarding the core Enigma system, I am surprised that the whitepaper contains little else concerning CloakCoin, the project. I would have liked to have found more detail on the future of the project, as well as more general information about the coin itself, as one would expect from a whitepaper.

Wallets:

There are Windows, Mac and Linux wallets available, as well as a paper wallet generator. There is also an Android wallet. A web wallet is currently in development and an iOS wallet will begin development this year.

General:

In general, there is much to be excited about in CloakCoin, with particular strength residing in the team’s commitment to creating a cohesive brand identity and ecosystem that combines strong marketing with equally strong development. Usually, with privacy-focused projects, the development is great but the marketing is lacklustre. This is not the case here.

I want to talk a little more about the security audit mentioned earlier. You can find a copy of the report here.

In the report, Cognosec identified a major issue with transaction anonymity in January 2018. What’s important about this is that CloakCoin evidently care enough about the legitimacy of the coin’s underlying technology to have it vetted and have any issues publicly flagged. This issue with the anonymity of transactions was later resolved, as were the majority of other found issues (though these were of less severity).

That concludes my fundamental analysis of CloakCoin. Onto the charts:


Technical

CLOAK/BTC: Weekly

CloakCoin Weekly

CLOAK/BTC: Daily

CloakCoin Daily

CloakCoin Daily 2

I have provided three charts here for CLOAK as there is quite a lot of price-history to analyse.

Beginning with the Weekly chart, we can see that CloakCoin has experienced perhaps 5 or 6 full market cycles, of varying extremities. Most importantly, however, is the fact that CLOAK is currently trading inside the range in which it traded in its first week of launch on Bittrex; a historically significant orderblock that led to the coin’s first bull cycle in 2014. Following this cycle, price formed a huge range between 6000 satoshis and 55,000 satoshis, in which two smaller market cycles played out. Price then broke out in the summer of 2017, leading to an all-time high being set above 500,000 satoshis, with several subsequent lower-highs over the course of a year. As of winter 2018, price returned to the original range from the earlier years.

Looking at the first Daily chart, we can see an accumulation range that preceded the mega-bull move in spring 2017; this is where price is currently trading. In general, the minimum peak for each bull cycle has been ~190k satoshis; over 500% from current prices. Further, we can see the Daily 200MA flattening.

Looking now at the final Daily chart, I have zoomed in here on more recent months of price-action. The range resistance is at ~53k satoshis, with range support at ~23k satoshis. There have been several buyups on significant volume – as confirmed by our earlier rich-list analysis. Within this larger range from last August, we have formed a more recent range since late November, between 27-36k satoshis. Price is currently floating underneath the Daily 200MA, flirting with a close above it for the first time since May 2018.

Overall, for longer-term speculators and investors, I couldn’t think of a better opportunity for an entry into CloakCoin. We are at historically low prices; prices that people paid for CLOAK almost five years ago, prior to any of the present developments. There is also roughly 30-35% of downside risk, as a higher timeframe close below the range support at 23k satoshis would signal further downside. Contrast this with a statistically probable move to at least 190k satoshis in bull cycles, and you have a a roughly 16:1 reward-to-risk opportunity.


Conclusion

This report is now approaching 5,000 words, and it is time to draw it to a close.

My final grading for CloakCoin is 9 out of 10.

If it wasn’t for the weaknesses in community engagement, this would have been my first Coin Report awarded a grading of 10.

Lastly, here is a link to a Google Sheets file with any significant data from previous reports compiled for cross-comparative purposes. I will keep this updated as I continue to write these reports.

I hope this report has proved insightful and that you’ve enjoyed the read! Please do feel free to leave any questions in the Comments, and I’ll answer them as best I can.


If you’ve enjoyed this post and want to receive new posts straight to your inbox, I’ve set up a RSS-to-Email feed that will be sent out weekly; every Monday, 12pm. Just submit your email and I’ll make sure you’re included in the list. Cheers.