BitClave设想一个世界，智能合约取代 需要中间商，改变社区使用互联网的方式。 我们的主要目标是建立一个新的关系标准 企业和客户基于智能合约。
- 允许存储的BitClave Active Search Ecosystem（BASE） 并管理大量的无法追踪到特定的个人 数据由客户活动记录组成 - 这使客户可以控制允许的数据 创建，共享和访问，全部通过区块链使用 和智能合约 - 消费者活动令牌（CAT）将用于促进奖励 在系统内提供各种可用的服务 基础
总的来说，系统有两个主要组成部分： - 匿名 活动分类账，相关客户的分散账户 零售商活动，包括任何零售活动 生态系统中的某一方可以观察到（例如，参观零售店 存储，购买产品，评估零售商）。个人识别 信息被掩盖使用活动分类账匿名机制 有选择地隐藏个人客户/零售商的身份 仍然允许某些类型的分散分析 计算在分类帐数据和其他分类帐输入字段可能 包含仅可用于特定组的加密数据 （例如，响应于实现智能的条件释放 合约触发器）。基于分类帐条目，组员将会 能够执行活动分类帐分析操作来识别 活动特点或零售趋势，使营销或 商业机会，例如提供折扣 受欢迎的项目或邀请客户参加产品演示 - 在 活动分类账的顶部，将是一个令牌交换提供 激励和奖励感兴趣的各方和群体。 实体可以通过贡献活动数据来获得令牌 分类帐或通过创建和执行智能合同 其他各方
$42 079 341
$32 230 081
$42 243 441
$42 721 525
The monopoly of traditional market players do not give BitClave any chances to scale its solution in the right way. BitClave has not proven market acceptance, so talking about scaling the platform and taking any significant market share prematurely.
The company provides the convincing platform appeal analysis for one consumer group – organizations. However, the solution success will depend on the growth of such critical amount of users in the ecosystem in order to be beneficial for the companies to cooperate with BitClave. There is no MVP at the moment ( minimally viable product) Not any personal information is monetized but only the one which is relevant for concrete consolidated companies in the ecosystem. At the initial stages of the project development the company is going to provide subsidies to partner companies to maintain interest in the project until it eventually becomes interesting in itself. The main risk is that, firstly, it is not clear how long the fund of collected money/ collected funds are going to be burned through in this way. Secondly, a lack of a clear monetization project scheme does not allow to shift part of the load from the fund to revenues from basic operations. As a result, the funds can trivially ran out ( you should remember about the possible depreciation of the long-term budget nominated in the tokens) and with this business model partners have nothing to offer. BitClave does not clearly formulate the sin directions of project monetization. The point at issue is mainly about “additional services” however it is not clear how relevant this will all be to organizations. Obviously, taking into account the availability of subsidies it is meant that initially before confirming the platform’s robustness for marketing purposes, the partnership with organizations will not be monetized but, on the contrary, subsidized. The planned remuneration system based on CAT-tokens, contains significant risks of unfair behavior on the part of users. The users will be provided with tokens as an encouragement for the ad view In this case there is a high probability of forming an entire layer or even the whole community of users, monetizing passive ad. Bots should also be remembered. However, it is not yet clear how to deal with fake personal information ( the user is anonymous and cannot be verified) and cheating activity. At the same time, too serious set of conditions for obtaining tokens can lead to loss of interest of users to the project.
The company does not provide the mechanism of return on investment The mechanism of returning funds to the investors is not provided. BitClave does not provide any financial forecasts of its future activities. There is only one way of project development – scenario approach is not available evidently arising from possible mismatch of the team plans. The significant part of the tokens (30%) is reserved by the team for the long-term project development budget. BitClave risks losing this source if the token becomes devalued. Hard cap ICO makes up 50 million USD. However, within two rounds of preliminary sales the company collected more than 16 million USD. that has already covered the volume of median rounds in comparable venture transactions with the participation of an average of more mature and developed businesses in 10-16 times. As part of the presale, the tokens were sold at a 75% discount regarding the main ICO round. Such a layout stimulates the early exit from investment of the presale participants on the formation of the secondary market and the collapse of the token exchange value.
The founders either lack the experience of developing entrepreneurial projects in the block chain environment or in principle the experience in projects related to block chain and crypto- currencies.