A Cryptoeconomic Approach For ICOing High-Yield, Stable Decentralized Networks – Two Token Model

On December 6, 2017, game company and distributor Valve announced that its gaming platform Steam is no longer accepting Bitcoin as a payment method. The company explained that Bitcoin transaction fees have gone up to nearly $20 per transaction last week, “compared to roughly $0.20 when we initially enabled Bitcoin.”

At the same time, CryptoKitties burned up 15% of Ethereum’s gas, causing a mid-level congestion and increasing in-game fees.

Since we have been working on some ICO projects over the last months, focusing on cryptoeconomics and token design, we felt the need for a model that would allow a high-yield return for investors on the one hand, whilst guaranteeing the stability and a proper functioning of the specific application(s) at the same time.

Two Token Model TTM Thesis
Decentralized networks need a token model that

  1. guarantees a stable cryptoeconomic mechanism to exchange assets, services, time and money between peers, and, at the same time,
  2. allows investors to reap large economic benefits, and, therefore
  3. allows an overall story of combining a cooperative/post-capitalist model with a pure capitalist play by technically separating both aspects through the representation of two dedicated tokens.

Proposed Solution

A) Two-Token Model

The network features 2 different types of tokens:
a) a core token (CT) that is tradable at crypto-exchanges,
b) an application token (AT) (per application)

CT
The only function of the CT is that of a currency. In all of the network’s potential applications, there is one overarching CT.

AT
The AT is designed depending on the respective application’s requirements. It is the only token that allows the usage of the respective application. It is not listed at any exchange. Potential listings of ATs probably could not be prevented technically, but by regulation: The network defines the listing of AT’s as not allowed and will exclude applications that behave otherwise. Organizers of applications that already have a token will be offered to exchange their tokens for AT. Additionally, they can be awarded CT depending on their applications’ asset values.

B) Token Issuance Mechanism

Initially, there will be two events that happen at the same time:

  • SAFT of CT to (accredited) investors
  • One-time distribution of (free) AT to interested potential network application users (comparable to a basic income)

The Token Story

A (revenue-driven, high-yield) SAFT will finance the development of the network and serve as the initial AT supply of the network. Within the first applications running, AT holders can earn additional AT, and, directly derived from that, additional CT. The intensity of use and supply of AT represents the intrinsic value of a CT.

This model of a clear, technical separation into  – and combination of – a speculative and an application part should serve the initially conflicting interests of both categories of the network‘s stakeholders: the potentially application-interested majority of AT holders and the potentially solely commercially driven and high-yield-driven investors who hold and trade the CT.

Every app token holder (ATH) will receive CT’s additionally to their AT’s, if the intensity of use of the application reaches a certain threshold. As long as the intensity of use is above this threshold, the ATH will receive additional CT’s, scaling with their intensity of use. When the intensity of use sinks below the threshold, there will be no CT’s awarded further on.

Definition of Intensity of Use IoU Criteria

As mentioned, ATH are being rewarded CT depending on their intensities of use of the application(s). There are several aspects of defining an “intensity of use (IoU)” in a good way. First, an ATH could use a specific application very frequently. This could add to her IoU. Then, the ATH could move huge assets within an application. Again, this could add to her IoU. Further on, an ATH could use an application in a way that leads to a higher IoU of another application. This would lead to trans-application elements of the IoU’s algorithm. Then, there are further aspects, s.a. hoarding/inflation, etc..

Model Attractiveness

The definition of the IoU algorithm is one key aspect of this token model. On the one hand, it seemingly is the most complex problem to solve for the network. On the other hand it offers the opportunity to create one single algorithm that is completely variable in design and can be tweaked throughout the lifespan of the network without any need for changing the structure.

Due to the fact that the AT is not tradable, and the IoU algorithm prevents the ATH from hoarding and other unintended use, it can be regarded as stable.

The CT, in turn, is a tradable token that entails no other rights than being exchangeable with other currencies. The prize of the CT will be defined by market forces alone. This pure market-driven nature of the CT, combined with the value(s) of ATs, makes the network’s model highly attractive for application-focused users, as well as for investors.

We have intensely discussed the TTM within our network, and we have not found severe weaknesses that could prove to become showstoppers. However, we invite you to prove otherwise! Please provide us with your feedback on TTM – thank you!

Incentivizing Blockchain Ecosystem Development The CSC Way

The final decision has been made: We will not ICO with Crowdstart Capital. After having worked on the preparation of a token sale based out of Germany several months we’ve reached the conclusion that such an ICO is not advisable at this time.

Two issues have been the decisive factors: First, an ICO based out of Germany would have to be done in the environment of a legal limbo. Other project teams may decide to take the risk of selling a virtual currency to professional and/or individual investors in Germany but we’ve decided that the regulatory uncertainty and risk is too high. With our parent company Datarella, we have built a solid brand reputation within the blockchain ecosystem and we are not willing to put this at risk.

Second, we think that we can better meet our goal of contributing to the blockchain community by giving our Crowdstart Coins away.  Instead of selling tokens to investors and using this cash to provide blockchain-based startups with consulting, services and solutions, we will reward Crowdstart Coins (XSC) to developers who add valuable code to the blockchain ecosystem.

We gained this insight to change our model while working on the cryptoeconomics; i.e. the inventive mechanism within a specific community. Finally, we have come up with a 3-step-process of distributing Crowdstart Coins – “XSC” – to the blockchain community:

A Blockchain Evolution Incentive Scheme

Phase 1 – Initial Token Distribution

In the first phase, we will distribute tokens to developers at conferences, events and hackathons. This activity will occur primarily in Europe and the distribution will be at the discretion of CSC. The goal of this phase is to get tokens into the hand of active developers and blockchain early adopters/enthusiasts.

Phase 2 – Smart-Contract-Based Token Distribution

Developers committing code to key blockchain projects can opt-in to receive XSC tokens for every line of code that is accepted for their respective projects. CSC will set up a smart-contract-based system that will pay out tokens according to the accepted commits. CSC will programmatically monitor the git repos of major projects.

Phase 3 – Liquid Feedback Mechanism

In the third phase, members of the community will be able to suggest projects to be included in the incentive scheme, a model known as liquid feedback. Token-based ballots will be used to enable community voting and determine which blockchain projects should be included.

In this phase, we’ll also be rewarding developers to contribute to our code base. Essentially, over the course of the three phases of the incentive program, it should morph from being a mostly manual process to a fully automated process.

If you’re a developer who committed code to advance Blockchain technology at-large, you’ll be eligible to receive XSC tokens. You can request XSC by filling out the form:

Developer Incentive Program: Claim XSC Rewards

Show us that you’ve got the right stuff!

IOTA Hackathon: Open Car Charging Network (Part 2)

iPhone with PlugInBaby App
+++UPDATE+++

We’ve stirred much interest in the issuance of our XSC token at the IOTA hackathon in Gdansk. We therefore decided to prolong our rewards campaign for IOTA developers for 1 week:

If you’re a developer who committed code to advance the IOTA network during the month of November, you’ll be eligible. If you think you’re eligible you can request up to 250 XSC until Friday, 1 December 2017.

Fill out this form now! Show us that you’ve got the right stuff!
Developer Incentives Program: Claim XSC Rewards

For more information on the CSC Blockchain Evolution Incentive Scheme, click here  and here.

+++UPDATE+++

This is the second installment outlining the experiences of the winning team “PlugInBaby” during the IOTA Hackathon. In the first post (found here), we describe the idea generation process.  In this post, team member Rebecca Johnson goes into more detail with regards to how the team built the project and what exactly it accomplishes.

Our PoC decentralizes and democratizes access to a  network of electric vehicle chargers by allowing the chargers to costlessly broadcast their status (offline, occupied, available) via 0 value transactions on the tangle. Next, using a mobile app, users searching for a charging station can query the tangle using 0 value transactions to search for tags of available stations. They can reserve a charging spot and book micro transactions necessary to pay for electricity, all using IOTA.

Concept Doodle
A world where individuals leverage open source software and DIY hardware to decentralise the market for energy.

Using the tangle as a database makes the solution quite elegant. The protocol for sending data and value are essentially the same which removes the need for a centralized payment processing layer and allows for the DIY ethic to extend all the way to the end-user.

This approach is also flexible enough to leave room for participation by utilities and other stakeholders since the hardware and software are open-source.  Improvements are welcome and anyone is free to implement the idea. The code can be found here.

Requirements & Assumptions

  • We restricted ourselves to using only IOTA for implementing the database functionality. This carries the theoretical advantages of future scalability, full decentralization and zero transaction costs for messages sent to and from the tangle as well as a mechanism for machine to machine electricity purchases.
  • We assumed that the API and the interaction between the charger and the car app are out of scope for the hackathon.
  • Charging station vendors need to send status messages for their stations (free, in-use, offline) using 0 balance transactions to the tangle. Our back-end provides this capability via terminal inputs. Since this is just a PoC we didn’t build out an API or UI for this portion.
  • A web-based front-end, a back-end connection to the tangle and an API for communication between the two needed to be built. Given this, the team split into two groups of 3-4 developers each.

Back-End:

The experience of the PlugInBaby team was similar to that of the Freedom Pass team. We started out by following this tutorial from Baltic Data Science and gained speed by utilizing some of the resources from the Q&A with Chris Dukakis of IOTA. After that, we connected to a testnet node and started issuing transactions.

Like the Freedom Pass team, we also considered using a mainnet node but the issue of how to connect with neighbors was eventually a knockout criterion. This was actually due to security concerns. One of our team members had a Java Runtime Environment setup on a remote virtual machine and we considered setting up an instance of the IRI. In the end, however, we weren’t comfortable with the security risks that connecting with unknown nodes presented.

In contrast to the other teams, the “PlugInBaby” team used the IOTA Python Library to build and connect the backend. Documentation for this library is quite sparse in comparison with the JavaScript Library. We’d like to thank Andreas OsowskiLewis Freiberg and  Chris Dukakis of IOTA for their round-the-clock support in getting everything up and running.

Our team member Lukasz Zmudzinski has written a great blog post on his site which outlines which Python methods we used to read and write to the tangle in greater detail. We used the Tornado web framework and asynchronous networking library for this project and wrote our own API  to communicate with the front end.

Team PlugInBaby hard at work on frontend development

Front End:

The front end was written primarily in JavaScript and utilizes server.js for Node.  To accelerate development we started using a boilerplate/skeleton for Node.js web applications. We later used bootstrap and AngularJS to improve the styling and make our web app mobile-ready and responsive.

Users can query the tangle for the transactions of vendors with free stations and also read dynamic pricing information. The search mechanism uses information written to tags while the state information about the charging station and the station latitude/longitude are written in the message. This information is then passed via API calls to the front-end for interpretation in the UI.

User Experience:

UI Workflow
UI Workflow
  • Step 1:
    The user uses a smartphone app to query the tangle for available charging stations.
  • Step 2:
    The user selects a charging station from the map. Each station has dynamic pricing which is shown in real-time along with the map pin when selecting the station.
  • Step 3:
    The user drives to the station and lets the station know that they have arrived by sending a message to the tangle.
  • Step 4:
    The charging station tells the app that the car is fully charged.
  • Step 5:
    The user’s IOTA wallet is debited and the transaction is signed by the seed stored in the app.
  • Step 6:
    The charger resets its status to available on the tangle and all the transactions/messages are available for verification.
Tangle Output
IOTA Tangle output: Following charging all transactions are available for inspection in the tangle.

What We Learned:

The PlugInBaby PoC demonstrates the feasibility of an IOTA-based search and payment app for IOTA-based DIY chargers but it is far from ready-for-use outside of the lab/hackathon. A number of issues came up which will need to be solved before this system would be appropriate for public use.

  • Tags only allow for 27 characters which wouldn’t be enough to store latitude and longitude data plus a transaction ID without truncation. The team ended up using the message field to store data (location + charger status) while the tags were used to store a searchable charger identifier.
  • Speed is quite limited on the testnet. Specifically, we found that the testnet confirmation times were quite long late at night (2-3 minutes) when fewer users were online running test applications. This is due to the fact that each new transaction must approve two other transactions. This approach scales well but also requires many active nodes to submit and approve transactions. As both the testnet and the mainnet grow this problem should be mitigated.
  • Transaction caching was required to make the demo useable within the alloted three minute presentation time.
  • While the support from the IOTA team was excellent, we noticed that the documentation, particularly regarding the phython libraries, is quite lacking. This makes development a slow trial and error process.
  • Security and privacy are generally open questions within the IOTA ecosystem. The team assumed these issues to be outside the scope of this PoC. That said we raised privacy concerns regarding the possibility of API misuse and the lack of privacy often during the development process. Improved documentation and more descriptive error messages would go a long way towards making these issues easier to handle.
  • Masked Authenticated Messaging (MAM), the planned Private Transaction layer, and the integration of zero-knowledge-proofs into the IOTA ecosystem are exciting areas for new research given the current limitations of IOTA in the area of security and privacy.

Conclusion

To sum up, the team learned a lot about the implementation of an exciting use case that really makes sense for IOTA. Is this the only way to build such a system? No.  There are many other ways to find, navigate to and pay for electric vehicle charging. Many market-ready centralized systems are already up an running.  Our PoC demonstrates, however, that it’s possible to solve this use case using IOTA alone which allows for the possibility of a scalable decentralized approach. This, in turn, could open up the field to many more players and provide a common system for various entities to build upon.

Hackathon Participants
Team „PlugInBaby“ at the IOTA Hackathon in Gdansk, Poland

 Here is an overview of all reports on the IOTA Hackathon’s projects:

1st place – “PlugInBaby”:

…describes the idea and the pivot of the project
Team “PlugInBaby”: Open Car Charging Network (Part 2)
…describes the technical level and provides resources

2nd place – “Freedom Pass”:
Team Freedom Pass: Fraud Detection (Part 1)
…describes the high level of the project
Team Freedom Pass: Fraud Detection (Part 2)
…describes the technical level of the project

IOTA Hackathon: Open Car Charging Network (Part 1)

iPhone with PlugInBaby app

+++UPDATE+++

We’ve stirred much interest in the issuance of our XSC token at the IOTA hackathon in Gdansk. We therefore decided to prolong our rewards campaign for IOTA developers for 1 week:

If you’re a developer who committed code to advance the IOTA network during the month of November, you’ll be eligible. If you think you’re eligible you can request up to 250 XSC until Friday, 1 December 2017.

Fill out this form now! Show us that you’ve got the right stuff!
Develsoper Incentives Program: Claim XSC Rewards

For more information on the CSC Blockchain Evolution Incentive Scheme, click here and here.

+++UPDATE+++

The IOTA Hackathon took place from Nov 17 to Nov 19 in Gdansk, Poland. Software developers from all over Europe came together to put to test the IOTA Platform with various use cases. The event was sponsored by IOTA, Baltic Data Science (blockchain and big data service), Datarella (blockchain and big data consultancy) and Bright Inventions (mobile app development). Four teams of developers and software experts formed around various use cases and competed for the prize money of 4,200 IOTA. Here in “Part 1″ we summarize the idea iteration process for the contest’s winning team  „PlugInBaby” and the associated pivot that took place while defining the project topic. Part 2 describes the development and design of the project in more detail.

Defining the Need

Idea Consolidation
Idea Consolidation

We started the hackathon with a group brainstorming session followed by some informal voting and group building around the topics generated.

After narrowing the focus down to the topics, “Autonomous Agents” and “Decentralized Stack” the group focused on idea generation.  Any potential topic needed to utilize the special characteristics of IOTA (scalability, speed, zero transactions costs) while avoiding limitations such as the lack of a Turing complete language and smart contract capabilities.

Initial brainstorming considered applications in manufacturing, autonomous transportation, supply chain management and distributed sensor technology.  Eventually the basic idea of using IOTA as a distributed database allowing individuals or autonomous agents to identify free parking spaces in cities and also search for those spaces crystalized out of the brainstorming process.

Pizza Box Brainstorming
Pizza Box Brainstorming

After several hours of work on the concept and the potential implementations, we found structural problems with the plan. In our initial approach, the team imagined that individuals or autonomous agents/smart cars would identify free parking spaces, notify others of their presence by writing to the tangle and potentially be compensated for the service. A number of important questions were however left open with this topic.

Critical Questions that Lead to the Pivot:

  • Why should a system for finding free parking spaces be built using IOTA?
  • Wouldn’t another technology be more appropriate?
  • Why not use a blockchain which allows for smart contracts?
  • Would people really use such an app?

Pivot to an open car charging network

After several hours of discussion, the team still couldn’t adequately answer the above questions so we turned to another idea. Instead of logging free parking spaces, we would provide a link between an IoT network of decentralized charging stations and traditional or autonomous cars needing charging services.

Currently, electric charging infrastructure is almost always mediated by large corporations and organizations. This project seeks to change this.  The team drew inspiration from ElaadNL which built a Proof of Concept (PoC) Charging Station for electric cars running fully on IOTA. Their charger is built using off the shelf tech and could be adopted by individuals who wish to offer electricity from their private microgrid or solar installations. What’s missing in the ElaadNL implementation is a user-friendly way to select and navigate to the charging station.

ElaadNLPoC
ElaadNL IOTA Electric Car Charger PoC

The ElaadNL PoC app works on a “Pull” basis where the user has to enter a charger code to search for the status of a particular charger.  The team wanted to design something that would work on a “Push” basis and push the location of open chargers to users within the familiar confines of a google map interface.

The team envision a world in which individuals could take an open-source IoT charger kit and set up an IOTA-based charging station wherever they have access to power and a parking space. This could open up a whole new layer of community-based decentral charging.

Concept Doodle
A world where individuals leverage open source software and DIY hardware to decentralize the market for energy.

The project, so conceived was well matched with the strengths of IOTA. Scalability and transaction speed would be needed due to continual improvements in the speed of charging and the fact that the search mechanism of the system would have to operate very quickly to guarantee a good user experience. A system with zero transactions costs was also judged to be appropriate for the type of microtransactions that need to occur between a car and a smart charger enabling real-time pricing for electricity.

We owe a shout out to ElaadNL for their PoC. The existence of such charger allowed us to think in a modular fashion and abstract away the charger component to focus instead exclusively on the building a system to find the chargers and transact with them.

IOTA Hackathon winning team “PlugInBaby!”. Team members (from left to right): Yoon Kim, Andrew Young, Rebecca Johnson, Lukasz Zmudzinski, Dominik Harz, Alexei Zamyatin, Linna Wang, Nicolas S – and the moderator Michael Reuter of Datarella to the far right

 Here is an overview of all reports on the IOTA Hackathon’s projects:

1st place – “PlugInBaby”:

…describes the idea and the pivot of the project
Team “PlugInBaby”: Open Car Charging Network (Part 2)
…describes the technical level and provides resources

2nd place – “Freedom Pass”:
Team Freedom Pass: Fraud Detection (Part 1)
…describes the high level of the project
Team Freedom Pass: Fraud Detection (Part 2)
…describes the technical level of the project

IOTA Hackathon – Lessons Learned: Fraud Detection (Part 1)

The IOTA Hackathon took place from Nov 17 to Nov 19 in Gdansk, Poland. Software developers from all over Europe came together to put to test the IOTA Platform with various use cases. The event was sponsored by IOTA, Baltic Data Science (blockchain and big data service), Datarella (blockchain and big data consultancy) and Bright Inventions (mobile app development). Four teams of developers and software experts formed around various use cases and competed for 4,200 IOTA in prize money.

This article describes the lessons learned by the „Freedom Pass“ team, which Kira Nezu from Datarella coached. The technical part of the lessons learned can be found here „IOTA Hackathon – Lessons Learned: Fraud Detection (Part 2)“ by the team member Jonatan Bergqvist. The team placed 2nd in the competition.

1. The Task

The team was joined by Bogdan Vacusta, who brought a real-life challenge from the London Council to the IOTA Hackathon. London Councils issue „Freedom Passes“ to disabled residents which allow them to use public transport within the city free of charge. Prior to the issuance of a Freedom Pass, one must obtain a doctor’s certificate to prove disability.

Pizza boxes served as flipcharts for use case scenarios

Unfortunately, scammers have successfully been photoshopping doctor’s certificates for perfectly healthy London residents. No one knows for sure how many Freedom Passes have been issued under false pretenses but the number is likely in the thousands. London Councils have no procedure in place to verify if a certificate has been faked. A simple alert, when one doctor has issued an unusually high number of certificates would be a huge step in successfully detecting fraud.  This step alone could save the public tens of millions of Pounds per year with the help of IOTA.

London Councils loose tens of millions of Pounds per year to fraud

The team’s task was to build a Proof of Concept (PoC) to prevent fraud. So, how can IOTA be used for fraud detection?

2. The Solution

The team decided to create a transaction from the doctor to the applicant, thus certifying the disability of the applicant on the IOTA Tangle. If an anomaly in the number of issued certificates of a doctor occurs, the system alerts the London Councils.

In an ideal scenario, the doctor would issue this digital certification from an app (mobile or web based), signing the transaction with her private key (this measure would actually help prevent fraud). Given the short timeframe at the IOTA Hackathon (less than 24h), the team chose to create sample data and to carry out the transaction on the doctor’s behalf for the PoC. A local database would be fed the details of the doctor and the applicant, as to identify them. So, the system for the PoC was to include the following components:

  1. An input form for doctor and applicant data
  2. An interface to the IOTA Tangle
  3. A database with doctor and applicant data
  4. A backend which analyses the data
  5. A frontend for the London Councils with a list of alerts
System Architecture for fraud detection with IOTA. From the doctor’s ID and applicant’s National Insurance Number, a Seed is generated (you can think of a „Seed“ as a key to access your data on IOTA).

3. The Process

Here’s is how it works:

1. Entering the data
The doctor’s and applicant’s data is entered via a web-based user interface (the team actually populated the database by writing a JavaScript method that wrote the fake data directly to the database, so this UI – although functionable – was not needed for the PoC. You can learn more about this in part 2 of the lessons learned):

User interface for entering application data

2. Certification
The data is written to the local database. Simultaneously a transaction – symbolizing the disability certificate – from the doctor to the applicant is immutably written to the IOTA Tangle. The transaction ID is, in turn, written to the local database adding the ability to prove that the certification has taken place.

3. Analysis & Reporting
The backend analyses the data and alerts the officials in case of any anomalies. ie. (If one doctor has issued unusally many certificates within a certain time frame.)

Anomaly report for issues doctor’s certificates

What we learned

We completed our goal within the timeframe despite running into issues due to working with an immature system along the way.  In the end, we managed to create a Proof of Concept perfectly suitable for the setting of the IOTA Hackathon.

We did run into a few issues along the way which must be addressed by the IOTA team in order to improve the system and make it fit for future use cases:

Speed of transactions: On the IOTA testnet we experienced long wait times when confirming transactions. Submitted transactions confirmed in ~1 minute, reading transactions took circa ~3-5 minutes or more depending on the amount of data. This may be a testnet issue independent of the mainnet.

The Documentation was not up to date, there was missing information and what documentation existed was somtimes misleading (i.e. Properties marked as optional are actually required, not obvious that a replayTransaction function creates a completely new transaction, sending message instead of transaction the sender is not documented on the tangle …)

Releases are not scheduled in advance, if an update is run during development, developers must adapt quickly to accommodate changes. A roadmap by IOTA for releases would be very helpful.

Node.js SDK is based on „callbacks“ (an old technology standard), not on „promises“ (current technology standard).

The API can easily be misused. Values and properties that shouldn’t be passed can go through without any error message. The API is missing descriptive error messages, leaving developers in the dark when it comes to hunting down bugs.

So, why IOTA?

Frist off, one might argue that this task could have been done with a regular database entirely. While this is true, a database is a lot easier to attack by hackers than a blockchain or tangle. Also, this kind of system could have been set up on a blockchain system s.a. Ethereum, why use IOTA? Well, the challenges blockchain systems are struggling to overcome are performance and scalability. Due to block sizes, transaction times constantly increase – thus making the systems less usable for scenarios in which transactions must happen near instantly.

IOTA helps to solve the problems of performance and speed of transactions. The team is in agreement that the IOTA Tangle and similar „non-block“ chain approaches are likely to be most feasible to enable scalability in future. Also, an application using IOTA can quite easily be transferred to related use cases.

Conclusion

Would the team recommend using IOTA for fraud prevention?
The answer is Yes, if the long term goal is to further develop IOTA in general. The answer is No, if the system should be used in a productive environment at this point, since it is still immature. Alternative systems which currently are more mature and could be used for the task include Hyperledger Fabric, Sovrin and Ethereum. These blockchain systems pose scalability issues in the future, whereas development here is also ongoing.

The IOTA application „Freedom Pass“ is very well scalable and transferable to related use cases. However, IOTA must undertake massive improvements regarding performance s.a. speed and documentation as well as for the API and SDK/node.js. If the above issues are continuously improved, the team recommends IOTA for further developing this kind of system for the public. IOTA promises future potential for the public for reconciliation of data, reduction of duplication, auditability, authentication.

Team „Freedom Pass“ at the IOTA Hackathon in Gdansk (from left to right): Michał Łukasiewicz, Kira Nezu, Bogdan Vacusta, Jonatan Bergqvist, Victor Naumik, Rafal Hofman, Artem Goncharenko

Continue to the technical report by Jonatan Bergqvist:
„IOTA Hackathon – Lessons Learned: Fraud Detection (Part 2)“

IOTA Hackathon – Lessons Learned: Fraud Detection (Part 2)

This is the second installment in the posts about the experiences that Team Freedom made during the IOTA Hackathon. In the first post, Kira set the stage and explained the current issues of the London Freedom Pass. In this post, we’ll get a bit more detailed with regards to how we built the project.

DISCLAIMER: Even though the project is called „Fraud Detection“ the technological focus is very much on IOTA and not at all on machine learning-methodologies or data science, as one would commonly associate with fraud detection and prevention.

After we’d narrowed the scope down sufficiently to what we thought would be achievable during a hackathon, we started getting familiar with the IOTA tangle. We followed this tutorial for making a simple transaction, written only a few weeks earlier but already with some modifications required. After having gotten ourselves familiar with the general concepts of the Tangle (much accelerated by a presentation and Q&A by Chris Dukakis of IOTA) we connected to a testnet node and started issuing transactions.

Before we get into the details of the project, I’ll make a short comment about the decision whether to run a full node, the IOTA Reference Implementation (IRI) or to connect to pre-existing nodes. In short, to run the IRI, one needs a complete Java Runtime Environment, which is one of the reasons why IOTA can’t be run on an IoT device at this point. Each node connected to the tangle exposes an HTTP API through which transactions can be issued. To set up an instance of the IRI, one has to acquire the addresses of the already connected nodes in the tangle. The recommended way to do this is by asking people in the slack-channel #nodesharing. Because of the above restrictions and our requirements in time, we didn’t think it would be necessary to run our own node.

Back to the task of solving the problem of fraud in the application process for the Freedom Pass in London boroughs. We settled for the JavaScript library since it does a lot of the heavy lifting on top of the API and is by far the best-documented library. (The winning team used the mostly undocumented Python library and still managed to interact fairly smoothly with the tangle). The iota.lib.js implements both the standard API, some useful functionality like signing, unit conversion and reading from the tangle. In our project, we had set out to supply the following interactions between the tangle and our users:

  1. Register Doctor as a seed on the tangle
  2. Register Applicant as a seed on the tangle
  3. Perform a transaction for each certificate between the issuing Doctor to the Applicant.
  4. Verify that a certificate was registered on the tangle given a Doctor and an Applicant
  5. Read information off of the tangle about outgoing transactions from all Doctors

Given the above functionality, how could we leverage the existing IOTA library in the best way possible? Well, since smart contracts or most types of advanced transactions aren’t really possible on IOTA (yet), we will need some off-tangle processing, storage, and UI.

For this, we implemented a backend and some wrapping to process the information from the applications. The server-side was written using Node.JS and the express-framework. To model the logic and structure of the database, we used MongoDB and mongoose. The MongoDB contained a simple key-value store, saving relevant applicant information. One could imagine that is could be upgraded to a graph-model to better mirror the tangle structure and to be able to more efficiently analyze connections between Doctors and Applicants, however, that was out-of-scope during the ~30h of coding we had.

In order for the user to interact with the tangle in an easy way, we built a small web-frontend. It allows the user to enter information about an application such as the national insurance number of an Applicant, postal code of the Doctor and Applicant, phone numbers, etc. At this stage, four things need to happen: 1. The information is saved in the MongoDB-collection, 2. Seeds for the Applicant and Doctor are created based on an aggregate of identifying information, 3. New test tokens are generated and sent to the Doctor’s account and 4. An IOTA transaction is issued from the Doctor to the Applicant.

To save the information into a MongoDB-collection a controller instantiates and returns a new model containing the just entered data. It passes it on to the server.jswho handles the HTTP-requests from the client.

There is no dedicated IOTA API-call for generating seeds, but they do supply a command line command for generating a random seed. We made our seeds relatable to the private information by concatenating the private key with the national insurance number for the Applicants and the Doctor’s ID for the Doctors. After the seed was generated, a fresh address is created for each new transaction.

To make the functions from the iota.lib.js a bit more usable, we wrapped the existing callbacks-based structure in Promises. This allowed our code to become a bit more asynchronous than it is ‚out-of-the-box‘.

Here is an overview of the architecture:

Once the data and the transactions are issued, the next step is to provide a way of viewing the existing applications and certificates. So we created a second page of the UI for listing all applications with relevant information read from the MongoDB-collection. This doesn’t, however, provide such a great way of finding the main type of fraud that we were considering, namely Applicants reusing information about Doctors. This makes it look like a single Doctor issued an unreasonable amount of certificates. A pretty easy case to catch, one would think, but considering it is a completely analog process done by on paper in different boroughs by different administrators, it sums up to quite a large amount of faked applications. This is the type of fraud we focussed on in our processing.

So how can we in a user-friendly way flag cases that should be investigated? We chose the simplest option and created a second view of the UI where each Doctor in the system is listed along with the number of certificates they’ve, supposedly, issued. The list is sorted by the number of certificates issued. Here one could imagine making it a bit smarter by including the date the certificate was issued and creating a more differentiated metric of certificates per time unit, but it wasn’t in scope this time around.  If a Doctor issued more than 10 certificates, they were highlighted in red. A very simple but potentially efficient way of communicating to the user that something needs to be investigated. Of course, the number 10 was completely arbitrary and could have been chosen differently. In fact, to decide that number, one would have to, first of all, analyze historical data.

To sum up, Team Freedom had a lot of fun and learned tons about IOTA, ideation, cooperation, and creation in a short time-frame. We managed to build a functioning Proof of Concept for how IOTA can be used for the secure issuing of medical certificates in order to prevent and detect fraud. The application to the Freedom Pass was done so that it would be easier to understand what was being done and why. But that does in no way mean that the base structure cannot be used for other purposes, in fact, it was written specifically to be general enough that it is also interesting in other areas.

Is this the only way that the problem could have been solved? No. Was it the easiest way of solving it? Absolutely not. However, we believe that only by experimenting and utilizing one of the few scalable and future-resistant distributed ledger solutions can we achieve applicability. There is, generally speaking, almost no distributed ledger application that could not have been done without the use of a distributed ledger, but it would have incurred great financial, organizational or trust costs. IOTA is a very cost-effective and scalable solution, but with the caveat that it is still in its infancy.

Freedom!

 Here is an overview of all reports on the IOTA Hackathon’s projects:

1st place – „PlugInBaby“:

…describes the idea and the pivot of the project
Team „PlugInBaby“: Open Car Charging Network (Part 2)
…describes the technical level and provides resources

2nd place – „Freedom Pass“:
Team Freedom Pass: Fraud Detection (Part 1)
…describes the high level of the project
Team Freedom Pass: Fraud Detection (Part 2)
…describes the technical level of the project

Blockchain and Liquid Democracy – Phase 3 of the CSC Blockchain Evolution Incentive Scheme

This post by Joerg Blumtritt describes how blockchain technology supports decision making and voting mechanisms in processes called Liquid Democracy. These processes are the basis for Phase 3 of the CSC Blockchain Evolution Incentive Scheme.

Distributed consensus, realising consistency without central control, is one main achievement of the blockchain. From the beginning of the Internet revolution, there has been the discussion, whether our new forms of media and communication would lead to another revolution as well: a political one.

New forms of political participation are discussed, like Proxy-Voting or Liquid Democracy, which had been hardly conceivable without the infrastructure of the Web. However, all the digital forms of presenting, debating, and voting for policies all suffered from a serious flaw: Either there would be no secrecy of the vote, or the legitimacy of the ballot would not be accountable, due to the lack of provable uniqueness of transactions. The curse seemed to be either to vote in the open or make it impossible to decide if a person was indeed not voting multiple times.

Blockchain is built to heal this very problem, guaranteeing uniqueness of transactions even for totally anonymous participants. And Liquid Democracy, as I will discuss here, promises to deliver a versatile, efficient, and grassroots liberal form of decision making that complements the blockchain idea of consensus.

Liquid Democracy
Politics today is often set equivalent to negotiating opinions in the parliaments, committees, or council. Representatives are given the mandate from the voters to represent their interests. Not everyone can be an expert in every field. To foster adequate decision making, lobbyism has become an integral part of the parliamentary system. First, this is industry associations and interest groups (the JICs, ethnic organisations, religious and cultural associations etc.) relaying their clients’ interests to the representatives by providing arguments. Furthermore there are those groups of experts that gather around certain topics, rather loosely connected compared with the industry associations. Those think-tanks are often initiated by politicians and are much less transparent regarding statutes or goals compared to the associations.

Liquid democracy> is a conceptual alternative to pork barrel politics and lobbyism. It is designed as a method for direct democracy, where voters not only ballot at the decisions but negotiate one with each other every step of forming a political opinion and building the “volonté générale”.

Liquid democracy is a form of proxy-voting. Participants have suffrage and are at the same time eligible, can thus better be called ‘actors’ than ‘voters’. Actors can issue initiatives for projects like laws, changes in laws, budget decisions, etc.

Initiatives
To start the process of decision making, actors formulate their proposal as a so called initiative. The initiative is uploaded to the decision making platform it to be reviewed and discussed. This step can be preceded by informal discussion going on before the actual upload. During this discussion-phase, the initiative’s author can still change the initiative and react to criticism and suggestions. After a fixed time span (the same for all initiatives on one topic), the initiative’s text is frozen and can no longer be changed. In this ‘frozen’-phase, the initiative has to gather support from other actors who openly and actively register as voters for this initiative. Also, alternatives to the initiative can be added to be decided at the same ballot. For each topic, there a quorum of minimum support can be set, and only initiatives which get above this threshold make it to the ballots.

Delegation
All actors can delegate their vote to some other actor, who then may delegate her vote together with all votes delegated to her further on, thus forming chains of delegations. Delegation can be withdrawn and changed anytime until the deadline for the decision has passed.

Delegation

Secrecy of the vote
Of course, if delegation is possible to anybody, it requires accountability who gets delegated how many votes. As soon as somebody passes on my delegation, I want to be sure about the possible consequences to have the possibility to decide to withdraw and re-delegate or vote to myself. Before the blockchain, it was at least debatable if computer-based voting systems in general should require full identification of the voters to the public to prevent fraud. With liquid democracy, however, it would become mandatory to disclose the identity of most voters. With the blockchain, it is finally possible to heal this. Delegations can be provably legitimate and transparent without requiring to vote fully in the open.

Presentation instead of representation
In more then 2000 years, from the beginning of the Greek democracy and the Roman republic, the representative system prevailed, in which people delegate their interests to someone to represent them. It is not necessarily the case that representative systems are also democratic but in our contemporary understanding, all democracies are representative, that is, the decision making is done indirectly and not directly. There are obviously hardly any examples of grassroots democracy that could be called a success, apart from a few counties in Switzerland. Is the ideology of representative democracy thus without alternative? Representation, the parliament, has a long list of advantages – from “not everybody can be expert for everything” to “not everybody can join every conversation” – a discussion of which would lead to far here, as would a criticism of representative democracy as such. Here we want to focus on liquid democracy as an alternative hypothesis to representation.

Communities exist by their members’ taking tasks, fulfil duties within the community, and participate in the successes that are communally achieved. In a society, citizens delegate parts of their tasks and duties to the state’s administration. Over the course of the last two hundred years, the citizens of the so called western world have handed over more and more of their very own responsibilities to the state – caring for the sick and elderly, birth and death, provisions for retirement, education and many more.

How these delegated tasks have to be carried out is fixed by the process of representative decision making that characterizes parliamentary democracy.

Elected representatives are assigned to taking care about this for a time of multiple years. That all these jobs can be done, experts have to be paid for and equipped with the necessary means of work. To control the adequate application of these means, finally an administration is needed to oversee it. It is not clear, how the carefully balanced system of checks and controls between administration and parliament would be affected by such a radical change in delegation that liquid democracy would propose. The promise, however is to take back responsibility into the hands of the people.

Direct democracy is usually just seen as plebiscite, that is to “give the decision to the polls”. Basically, the political work in this case is still done by the elected representatives. Proxy vote or the imperative mandate goes considerably farther by tying the votes to a definitive decision behavior of the parliamentarian representing their voters. Imperative mandates are usually bound to decisions of conventions of voters. A party conventions or a citizen councils decides by majority, and the delegatee has to represent this decision in parliament. Proxy voting however allows for every single person to delegate their vote to those who would represent their opinion in the session. All three forms, plebiscite, imperative mandate or proxy voting – as in the same way then the classic “conscience-bound mandate” of the most democratic election laws – assume that there is a group of people, homogeneous enough to be abstracted into one set and then represented by their member of parliament.

In liquid democracy there is no separation of suffrage and eligibility, because everyone can contribute and vote. Everybody presents themselves – and even if they would have delegated their vote to someone else, there is no abstraction of people to groups that are represented. Liquid democracy is a system of direct, non-representative democracy.

A complete presentation of everybody for themselves show of course the marks of Max Stirner’s anarchistic egoism. And communities that are organized in such a non-representative way, like e.g. Wikipedia, in fact well appear like you would imagine Stirner’s anarchy.

A logical outcome of such a non-representative system is also, to no longer distribute governmental transfer payments, subsidies or appropriations top-down, but allow every person the same access. It is thus only consequent that Piratenpartei takes the basic income guarantee as a programmatic goal.

Liquid democracy is often compared with Wikipedia – everybody can participate, all discussions are open. And by means of delegation, if someone would not see themselves as competent for the decision or be busy during the election process, the may trust their political decision to their delegate. This process of Wikipedia-decision making faces some sound criticism: people who cannot articulate themselves very well or who would have to fear that they become “talked into something” or shouted down in the discussion, will not even begin to take part. Everyone who became victim to one of Wikipedia’s deletion-discussions knows how this feels. But still, Wikipedia stands without doubt for one of the very big successes in collective collaboration in the Net. It may appear unbelievable, what was achieved by thousands of people together, without any monetary incentive – and continuously, Wikipedia is brought further, gets enhanced, and this despite the communication culture there is after all gruff, to say it moderately. Wikipedia’s culture nevertheless is not a good example for inclusion; the horrible gender-bias alone is telling.

A concept to soften this spiral of silence is to give the actors the option to perform under a self given name and identity. Since the blockchain can guarantee that every physical person would get only one vote, this ‘autonymity’, the freedom of flexible choice of name, has the advantage, that it is possible to articulate a particular opinion without sticking this permanently to the own personality. However the disadvantages of acting under pseudonym in a system like liquid democracy stand, as discussed above.

Another criticism aims at political reliability. Continuity and predictability are obviously a necessary part of representative systems. The members of parliament represent their mandators only indirectly. For showing to their voters, that their intended politics would be dutifully represented, they have to stay constant and reliable in a few striking aspects, while their motives for most of their decisions would remain undisclosed to their voters. Whip and fidelity to the coalition are the well known consequences – not really in the very sense of our constitution that would see the the decision behavior only bound to the conscience. Since there is hardly any empirical data on Liquid Democracy, it is for now totally unclear, how stable and continuous the policies would be that the liquid decision making process would support.

Consensus instead of compromise
Liquid democracy means everyone is able to contribute, and consensus is to be build above the suggestions. Consensus does not mean majority. A majority overrules those who do not share the opinion – after the ballot, the set of voters will be regarded as homogeneous regarding the decision in question. For the daily party business this means: once a party committee has made its decision, all members have to stand behind this (at least this is expected from the party members).

In a non-representative, direct democracy, having unity behind the majority is not the point, since every opinion remains valid and cannot be overruled. Thus it is especially important to concentrate on finding consensus on the crucial topics. Consensus means to really stand behind the decision and not just be outvoted. So we could call consensus in politics as “agreement on the truth” in opposition to “deciding on opinions”.

The struggle for truth leads, as mentioned above, immediately to a rather gruff tone in the debates. Those inferior with arguments frequently take their last stand: the “Shitstorm”, usually a ranting against decisions or actions without arguments – completely convinced to be right and full of anger, not getting right. Other then the compromise which is closed between the two sides engaged – often formalized as in a coalition agreement – consensus is not fixed and not binding. Like in Wikipedia where existing texts are always open to edition, and where the authors continuously have to defend their words if they would like these to remain, the consensus in liquid democracy can always be left, and an initiative for change be placed. Frequently, so called trolls appear in the course of decision making in liquid democracy – people insisting on certain topics in a very destructive way. As inconvenient such arguing with trolls is, it still leads often to overcome differences and find a broadly based consensus. The continuous attack on established consensus stabilizes.

Liquid democracy is, when thought to its end, a radical breach with the foundations of democracy that we know and take for granted. Fully evolved, liquid democracy turns the whole process of delegation to parliaments, experts and administration around. The global crisis of the established economical and political order makes it worthwhile to think about opening a new chapter of enlightenment and really consequently accept humans as autonomous beings, that may better care for themselves as benevolent representatives ever could by governing them.

Representation (=aggregation)

  • People are regarded as elements of different sets which are represented by typical specimens, the representatives.
  • One speaks for the others
  • The representative is the only one who can be noticed of a set from the outside.
  • Works well if people are homogenous regarding their needs and preferences

Presentation

  • No two people are the same (As we clearly see now through web analytics, targeting, social media, etc.)
  • Speak with us, don’t speak for us.”Let’s listen to every voice without ironing out the differences.
  • Presentation instead of representation

Electorate

  • Participants or votershare suffrage and are at the same time eligible, can thus better be called ‘actors’ than ‘voters’. Actors can issue initiatives for projects like laws, changes in laws, budget decisions, etc.
    Initiatives
  • First step is formulating the initiative as a proposal and upload it to be reviewed and discussed. This step can be preceded by informal discussion going on before the actual upload. During this discussion-phase, the initiative’s author can still change the initiative and react to criticism and suggestions. After a fixed time span (the same for all initiatives on one topic), the initiative’s text is frozen and can no longer be changed. In this ‘frozen’-phase, the initiative has to gather support from other actors who openly and actively register as voters for this initiative. Also, alternatives to the initiative can be added to be decided at the same ballot. For each topic, there a quorum of minimum support can be set, and only initiatives which get above this threshold make it to the ballots.

Delegation
All actors can delegate their vote to some other actor, who then may delegate her vote together with all votes delegated to her further on, thus forming chains of delegations. Delegation can be withdrawn and changed anytime until the deadline for the decision has passed.

Update On The Crowdstart Capital Token Sale

The Crowdstart Capital token sale will start on December, 1,  and will end on February, 28, 2018.

The reason for the new start date is ongoing discussions with regulatory bodies. Since we are making every effort to to conduct a quasi-compliant token sale, we will begin the token sale four weeks later than the originally planned date.

The reason for the extended token sale period is to allow interested token buyers and ourselves more time to really understand the business model behind Crowdstart Capital. During the last few weeks we have learned that many potential token buyers like and support our model in general. However, many of them want to learn more about how we accelerate blockchain startups and blockchain technology in general, in order to get a better sense of their future investments.

If you are interested in buying XSC tokens, you may reach out to the Crowdstart Capital team on Slack or via email. In early November, we will offer our first live chat in which we will discuss several aspects of the token sale. If you want to stay informed, please register for updates in our Slack.

Crowdstart Capital acceleration program and innovation

Innovators and people talking about innovation.

How can companies go from talking about innovation to innovating?

There is a strong trend, especially in larger organisations, to try to further innovation by appointing Innovation Directors (mind the capital letters), Heads of Innovation, Innovation Evangelists etc. While the intention is good, it is simply very difficult to pinpoint how successful innovation can be introduced and integrated into a very long tradition of doing things by the manual. Does that mean that more innovation is happening? Do the people responsible for spurring employees to “think outside the box” actually change culture or do they one day find themselves playing cajón in a giant drum circle of executives wearing black turtlenecks? (Note: from a real life situation, without the turtlenecks).

We at Crowdstart Capital don’t pretend to know the answer to these burning questions, but we can say that the need for innovation is not receding. It’s more likely rising exponentially with the emergence of new technologies and concepts such as convergence or game theoretic advances, which require a new understanding of the future of society. By changing perspective, applying concepts from other fields to problems previously unsolved (like game theory in Bitcoin or physics to evolutionary biology) or simply taking a moment to recognise already existing ideas, groundbreaking innovation can be achieved.

The hard selling point for many investors in our digital token sale is how we develop companies and promote innovation better than corporate incubators or accelerators. There are two reasons why I believe in our investment hypothesis: 1. Our well-developed and customisable acceleration process, and 2. Our direct connection to and understanding of corporate needs. Below we will outline the five steps of our acceleration process:

Phase 1. Selection
Based on industry criteria, CSC sources and selects startups in the following industries: 

  • Industry 4.0 (IoT, Automation, Supply Chain)
  • Energy (Solar, Wind)
  • Legal Tech (AI, Compliance)
  • Healthcare (Data Accessibility, Security)
  • Space (Earth Observation, Satellites)

Our selection is based on three parameters:

  1. Product – feasibility, innovative-ness, market-need, location, etc.
  2. Team – vision, expertise/competence, “coachability”, i.e. communication and cooperation skills, diversity, etc.
  3. External factors – current CSC portfolio, industry needs, legal aspects, etc.

Phase 2. Onboarding
Aligned with industry requirements, we onboard the new startup into our acceleration process. We make an in-depth assessment of the technology, vision, financials, etc. in order to accurately adapt the following steps of the process.

Phase 3. Product Development
As a response to Phase 2, in close collaboration with the startup team we develop the product using agile methods. Collectively, we have decades of experience of developing scalable products from scratch. This experience will be put to work for and taught to each startup. The product development is constantly being correlated with strategy and vision of the future exit partner.

Phase 4. Matching
As a final reality check, we match the needs of our corporate partners with the product developed during Phase 3. If needed, we go back to the drawing board and adapt, if not we proceed to Phase 5.

Phase 5. Exit 
In the guided sales process, we leverage our experience in private equity, venture-funded firms and as investors to create the maximal value for all parties. 

Using this process, we attempt to leave innovation in its natural environment, the entrepreneurial and curiosity-driven world of startups. Without altering the habitat or motivation for startups to realise their vision, our goal is to aid them in their hard work.

Crowdstart Capital vs Traditional Venture Capital

At first sight, there might be no big difference between an investment by Crowdstart Capital CSC or a traditional venture capital firm – both select promising startups, invest, create value and, finally, help them being acquired  by a target company.  However, If you look at the details, two major differentiators can be unveiled.

First, Crowdstart Capital does not manage a fund financed by so-called Limited Partners, or LPs, typically comprised of financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies or hedge funds. CSC invests money originated with a digital token sale, or ICO. By offering its digital token XSC, CSC collects money that is invested in startups. The XSC token holders do not own any shares in CSC, nor in the portfolio companies, and they are not entitled to receive any financial return in the form of a dividend or another payout.

Instead, the token holder can trade their XSC tokens on cryptocurrency exchanges and profit from a potential increase of value. The fundamental, underlying reason for an increasing value of each XSC token over time is embedded in the CSC investment scheme: 75% of the profits made in the case of a financial transaction, such as an acquisition, will be reinvested. That means, every positive financial transaction may add to the total value of XSC tokens. Since the total amount of issued tokens will not change, each token should profit from the CSC investment scheme.

The next major differentiator between CSC and traditional VC investments is the specific investment process. A traditional VC typically acts quite opportunistically by trying to stir interest for their portfolio companies with a big number of different potential target companies in order to maximise the takeover price. We at CSC, as our colleagues over at traditional VC firms,  also like to profit from investments. But, our goal is not to maximise the takeover price. Instead, we focus on a streamlined, efficient investment and startup development process that is closely aligned with our industry partner’s strategic roadmaps: by guiding our portfolio companies right from the start, working together with them to build their products in a way they can smoothly be integrated into our industry partner’s business units, we optimise the startup’s way to exit.

Within a 6-12 month’s period, a startup should be ready to be acquired and to add value to our partner’s balance sheets immediately. This guided tour to exit can be regarded as a leaner, quicker and more solid version of the traditional VC approach.

We at CSC are fully aware that our approach is a new one. In the fall of 2017, we can not yet prove that the CSC way works. However, we can prove that we have been quite successful in our field of investment, the Blockchain technology. With our company Datarella, we have been working on Blockchain projects with industry leaders since 2015. Our most visible project is the Building Blocks project, United Nation’s first Blockchain project ever, that we developed for the UN branch World Food Programme in a Jordanian refugee camp in the first half of 2017.

Based on our extensive working experiences in the field of Blockchain as well as our team’s personal experiences in building companies, investment funds and working in C-level positions in major global companies, we strongly believe that CSC will become a success in the startup landscape. We actively seek conversations with venture capitalists and would like to learn from them, and to discuss various investment approaches.

First and foremost, we focus on our digital token sale that will start on November, 1st. Before, we offer a portion of our digital tokens to selected professional investors in a pre-sale. We thank all participants in the token sale in advance and are looking forward to investing in promising Blockchain projects!