Kickico - a revolution in crowdfunding, or ICO for ICO (comparison with other platforms)

So, I continue my series about ICO. Today I decided to consider another project that I liked (the simplicity and obviousness of the idea, at least) - Kickico . And this time from 4T (or K) I will single out only one thing: the concept. Why? Because so many people ask the question: “but how, in fact, can a concept be evaluated?” Of course, the analysis below does not claim to be comprehensive, but puts emphasis and gives the logic of my reasoning as a possible project investor in extremely general colors.

To start IMHO: ICO (ITO - Initial Token Offer) is the highest point in the development of charity, as well as crowdfunding and crowdinvesting: if you follow the entire history of the formation of this phenomenon, you can understand that its basis is to reach a level of more and more abstractions and simplifications .

And based on this thesis - my brief analysis-comparison ...

Level zero

If we talk about the history of crypto investing, then the first attempt at the initial placement of tokens is to recognize the fundraising for MasterCoin. It was 2013. It was in those days that the tradition was laid to open the topic of a new project on Bitcointalk.

Interestingly, the final amount amounted to as much as 5,000 bitcoins, that is, at the current rate, it is $ 20,000,000. However, then the prices were different.

Automation of the process of creating, distributing, selling tokens could not be called successful. And so V. Buterin and his brainchild - Ethereum appeared on the arena.

Level # 1

Ethereum had several obvious advantages:

1. This project immediately became closely tied to community development. The number of those who use and simultaneously develop the Ethereum network has increased in proportion to the growth in popularity of the platform;
2. Ethereum was immediately “imprisoned” not just as another fork of bitcoin, but as a “currency” with its buns and features, one of which was just the automation of ICO.

There is a minus, which strongly pushes the entry threshold: issuing tokens on the air "requires serious programming skills, but leaves the user with the problems of marketing, consulting, distribution, listing of the token." In order not to look for a long time, look at smart contracts and everything will become clear: this is not the most complicated code, but for non-coders this is enough to discourage the desire to go further. Hiring question? Yes, but that’s just a crutch.

Level 2

Alexander Ivanov, a well-known (now) Russian developer, understood the problem and presented to the crypto community his Waves platform, based on the consensus of the LPoS format, which is nothing more than the development of the PoS idea.

"Waves" were an undoubted step forward. In addition, it was Waves that introduced decentralized exchanges (DEX), where currencies are not traded through the usual “layers” (usd or btc, for example), but directly to each other.

If we take the stages of the transition from cryptocrowdfunding on a “clean” blockchain (Bitcoin) to the product of A. Ivanov, then we will see the following pattern:

1. With each new project , the entry level decreases, that is, it becomes more massive;
2. In addition to technical improvements, other modernizations are beginning to appear, for example, Waves conducts marketing of projects launched on this platform: to be more precise, a separate division of ICOhub deals with this ;
3. Finally , not only the number of those who can do ICOs is increasing, but also participating in it due to just the comprehensive development of the platforms.

Thus, all this very much resembles the process of programming itself in a retrospective deployment: first, those who wrote assembly language were few, then this language was "simplified" and there were dozens, hundreds, then languages ​​appeared even more advanced, and the community of programmers began to count thousands, and nowadays - millions. Of course, this does not mean a proportional increase in the quality of the code, but mass character, which, however, follows the well-known law of the transition of quantity into quality.



According to this model: “to do faster, but also reliably, but also beautifully”, the Kickico platform went , in my opinion. Judge for yourself:

1. It is possible to organize on it not only an ICO, but also a personal crowdsale (crowdfunding, including without issuing a token), with which you can raise funds for the publication of a book or, for example, an audio album;
2. Key parameters: the number of tokens, the launch of the campaign itself, the distribution of tokens and other technical wisdom are issued by default “out of the box”;
3. You can launch campaigns whose tokens are created on the air, waves, graphene, or on any other blockchain, even your own: thereby using the capabilities of all these communities, and also creating a synergistic effect from the joint use of different platforms;
4. The process of trust, which is so lacking for many who want to launch a new product for the first time, is solved in several ways at once: trust in the platform itself, its community, as well as in organized checks of launched services;
5. And one more thing: integration with Bancor Protocol, which not only “suddenly turned” the KickCoin token into a smart token and added liquidity to it, but the platform itself integrated the Bankor’s network, so campaign tokens that raise funds on it can also become smart tokens and will be traded immediately, bypassing exchanges. This solution itself increases the cost of KickCoin, since it is they who provide all these smart tokens.

In this sense, Kickico is the future , because for the founder, the technical details are always an extra headache (let it not be said with the Fermenters :). Especially for small and medium-sized projects. Of course, you can always find sensible programmers, but in a saturated market it is not so easy to do, and if you say: “find it quickly and cheaply,” it is simply impossible.

Let's remember another evolution. The evolution of operating systems. The first of them were cumbersome, difficult to program and understood their units. Then DOS entered the arena with clear access to files and a navigation system. And then a revolution happened: Apple (and without their knowledge and Microsoft) created what we usebillions are still used - “windows” (Win + Dos). The picture below is just for clarity: that simplifying the form always requires complicating the content.



In my opinion, Kikaisio is a revolution of precisely this scale: an interface one . After all, it is very important in the field of crowdfunding that the idea is born on time, and therefore quickly. Since the invention of the radio, when Marconi and Popov fought for the primacy of the creator, little has changed. Quite the contrary - the speed and scale only increased. Yes, not everyone likes the simplification approach: but this world requires it.

So when I hear that Kickico- this is the same as Waves (or even Ethereum) understand that the community has a lot to develop: yes, these systems complement each other and certainly do not deny it, but if Ethereum is a super-computer that can be “sharpened” for many tasks , Waves is a service that specializes within this global computer for a specific task (issue of tokens), while Kickico is already a specialized software package that can do everything very beautifully and well related to the dissemination and monetization of ideas.

To understand the process deeper - let's plunge into the world of comparisons.

Classic crowdfunding vs Kickico

The first thing that comes to many minds when the crowdfunding model is voiced is Kickstarter or, for example, Indiegogo. But, as the creators correctly noted, “cross-border, lack of intermediaries, transparency and absolute flexibility of compensation formats due to the creation of tokens”, is something that is difficult to achieve on centralized resources.

Of course, now there are still problems in the logic of smart contracts and so far there is no global reputation system within the blockchain society. But since 2009, much has been done in this direction, and most importantly, even more will be done, while centralized models, on the contrary, regress: their support requires more and more resources that are spent on tasks that are “defaulted” in the blockchain environment . And trust is first and foremost: Moderation based on p2p principles is much faster than its counterpart in a world where everything is subject to a clear, pyramidal scheme.

The simplest and most obvious example is the allocation of funds when the campaign ended with incomplete collection. How to solve this problem? In centralized models: either give a part if some minimum threshold is reached (say, 250,000 out of 1,000,000), or give only the full amount (100% charge). And in decentralized? Everything can be made more flexible - it’s enough that the corresponding model is in demand by the community. Smart contracts in this regard are an elegant solution.

In addition, fundraising around the world is a problem that is poorly solved in the world of centralization, but not in the one that Kickico is developing.

And about classic crowdfunding:there you can’t collect for a free children's book, for example. Because nobody needs it. Kickico has 1% of the fees that authors can allocate to the fund for such non-profit projects. This is important because this is how the platform can help non-profit projects see the light. “Almost charity: more precisely, its innovative model!”

Blocks vs Blocks

Of course, you should pay attention to the comparison of those who go side by side with Kikaysio . I will not retire to the infinity of gradations - I will take only a few obvious examples:

1. Single cycle platforms. An example - ICObox - one of the most powerful teams on the Internet, which is ready to develop a marketing strategy and technical implementation, as well as polish all this with the legal component, for ICO. But the solution is not for everyone:
   
   The first is the team: scaling it is quite difficult, because declared a certain level of expertise. In addition, this approach immediately limits the possibility of parallelizing tasks: say, even on Kikstar 1300-1400 campaigns can go simultaneously, half of which, at least, will be successful. ICObox is doomed to the successful launch of everyone and everything;
   
   The second is the price threshold: entry from 25 to 50 btc is not for everyone, and most importantly, it is not always necessary;
   
   Third - In many ways, this project is closed on a cycle: that is, it does not develop a certain ecosystem, but provides a “turnkey ICO”, ​​thereby limiting both the audience and the prospects for its development.
2. Platforms for launching techno-startups . Examples are COSS, Starbase:
   
   Of course, they are closer to the idea of ​​Kikaisio, but still limited primarily to the creation of infrastructure projects, while the second wave of ICO involves a greater focus on the real sector and personal crowdfunding campaigns;
   
   In addition, Kikaisio, in addition to the flexibility to create the projects themselves, has an opposite plus - specialization in charity products, while the same COSS declares much broader areas of development, which means it will be a Swiss knife, which is not bad, but spraying is always a big risk.
   
   Often, tokens of this kind can be safely attributed to securities and, moreover, “they are happy to accept American citizens, which means only one thing: the highest degree of risk for both the organizers of the company and all those involved in their campaigns." However, there are exceptions.
3. Local sites . Examples are ico365, planeta.ru: here the question is not so much in technology as in geo-referencing: yes, wechat is very popular in China, but it is absolutely not used in Russia ( and it’s also forbidden ), but in other countries - is not the biggest success. Local products are not bad, this is just a different development path: it contradicts the idea of ​​blockchain openness to some extent and therefore is a transitional form rather than an evolutionary and non-dead end branch.

Thus, for me personally, Kickico has a number of undoubted advantages over both grandparents and followers (and even competitors) - precisely from the point of view of the created environment as the final product:

1. Clear niche positioning: crowdfunding and crowdfunding in all areas;
2. At the same time - fan coverage of the audience due to the creation of an eco-environment;
3. Defending and developing blockchain principles, which means following the main trends of the global community;
4. Finally, the standardization of all the important components of the ICO, not just the technical one.

Therefore, I am free to agree with the team that “KICKICO has a number of exceptional solutions, such as a unique model of its own token, provided by a reserve fund that creates a unique economic environment.”

The team’s ICO goes well: apparently, there are those who agree with me. What do you think?

PS In conclusion, I want to say two more important things: firstly, I am always very interested in how they evaluate ICOs on one of the coolest IT resources that simplify technologies ; secondly, in any industry everything always goes to unification (trading networks are offline, say, and online marketplaces), therefore ICOs are not unique and it is necessary to proceed first of all from a similar, objective reality.