Bailsman

So many similiar projects so it should be comparison not only with some handpicked centralised solutions but also with ICO projects. There are 3 very general financial scenarios (pages 35-36 of the WP) but no glimpse of the business model's KPIs. No blockchain competences detected as to the team.

Interesting project. Team is strong but I think its hard to gain adoption. But that said, I think vision is pretty good as well. If they can tap on the 1.5 trillion market, would be pretty powerful.

This is not financial advice or a recommendation to invest in this or any other ICO. Investors must perform their own due diligence and not rely on external ratings to make their final investment decisions. ICOs are risky and 100% loss of capital is possible.

Very average idea which meet every month. Huge competition. 10 million euros for very average idea - very poorly trust in it. The team is rather strong, will be able to make a miracle, but so far I dont trust

A high-demand project prepared by an experienced team. Demand is high, so it is expected that more rivals will be expected.
The biggest obstacle is a different law for each country.
I would like to know how the legal development process is progressing.
Hardcap are huge. In the case of using such a huge hardcap, it is desirable to present a gradual development range for the procurement amount.

Team - good core team and advisors covering all angles.

Vision - I can see why the project has been developed, but we need to contextualise the opportunity. $300bn held in real estate deposits, but how many customers will be eligible for a guarantee from a financial institution? For this, one would assume they would need a good credit record and the money to offset the deposit in the first place. So, if you were a financial institution, why wouldn't you develop your own guarantee scheme for these clients, thus keeping the premiums to yourself and being able to manage the risk accordingly? Further to this, does this solution need to use DLT to work? If anything, I would suggest this project is actually centralised from a risk perspective, but the risk is spread to third party guaranteurs and landlords. Is there really a reason for token issuance, less to raise ICO funds? Clients can pay in fiat and deposits are settled in fiat, so using the tokens merely makes for an extra layer in the process.

The greatest risk to this project is landlords and financial institutions developing the same project themselves without the need for a middleman.

Product - no MVP available. Smart contract on GitHub. I just cannot see the use case for tokens in this solution, or how this solution can survive if such a scheme proves to be successful when it is essentially just a middleman.

Bailsman’s concept isn’t new. In fact, at least 2 more companies have similar concepts. The lack of blockchain experience by the team is a source of concern.

The vision is strong and the market definitely has the space for multiple players. The project might have to establish a lot of guidelines in place when it comes to legal requirements. There should be strong developmental progress to justify the large hardcap.

Team looks very weak to me, both their experience and blockchain expertise. Advisory board needs to be represented with more people from blockchain community. Vision is nothing but average, product sounds like "another one of those". Not even an MVP available out there.

Here I’m seeing that well-known traditional businessman shows interest to an ICO field. And it’s really nice for me that serious players come to the industry.
Project solves clear market problem and attracts financial institutions to the work on Blockchain, tokenomics looks good and technical realization will be done professionally due to White Paper. It’s an A+ ICO, good luck guys.

That is a unique. At least I never seen something similar. Some things concern me though. As far as I understand, most of the risk is allocated to the banks. That means many applications will be rejected because banks will not want to lose money. So this will create a decreased demand for the tokens. And one more thing. There is too much exchange involved with FIAT and tokens. There will be additional fees over there. The white paper mentions some reputable institutions and organizations. Did they came in agreement with the Bailsman team or are they mentioned just to create a safe profile?

This is an intresting concept, well related to the real issues on the market. Still, the undertaking is huge, so the implementation might take more time and effort as stated. The team can be seen to pull this through, though definitely future expansion is needed.

Great team. I appreciate the way it's been structured. There's a level of seriousness and dedication that's been shown here that is worth a 5 I feel. It's refreshing.

The vision is interesting. It's a creative solution to a problem, no doubt. Wit it, though, I personally see some liabilities and difficulties. But it's worth observing. Using the tenets of blockchain I would have prefered the elimination of the problem to be more a focus than ways around the problem, because, at this point, I see it delving more into the financial realm than anything else, and that's a tricky space to be in. If it comes down to a lending-borrower dynamic I feel it's missing out on potential. And that said, the whole crux of this ICO is not being communicated accurately enough.

The product I can see there's work going into it, but, again, depends on the tweaking of this vision and being able to see more of it through its realization I think. It's not necessarily niche, but I do see adoption being a little difficult.

Good luck, guys!

The team is good but I don't see it as a unique concept. There are other similar projects out there and it will be difficult to stand out and get a ROI for investors.

VISION: This is a very interesting idea. It's not new in traditional capital markets -- many have attempted to securitise (ie create a financial security out of) third party guarantees ot other collateral -- but this is the first time I have seen a Blockchain application. It should be noted that doing this almost certainly creates a financial instrument which might lead to a variety of regulatory issues not only in terms of issuing the security but also in selling or brokering it. Furthermore, there may be problems with enforceability. 4/5

TEAM: The team looks strong enough to deliver, but some of them need to update their LinkedIn profiles. 4/5

PROFILE: I have scored the product mid marks although I have not been able to review it yet. 3/5

This is not an invitation to invest. ICOs are risky and you can lose everything you put in.

These types of products, think Afterpay have proved to be very successful if done well. It's the next generation of Layby/Credit cards, and it's proven to work.

However, execution is key. I have some doubts with the team, their experience isn't all that relative to this industry, and their chairman doesn't have any other experience on his LinkedIn.

It's a risky one for that reason. But the idea is solid.

Strong Corporate team. Token allocation is within corporate mindset 51% for public 49 for project(company). Advisory board is also backed with corporate background. Got it touch with CEO via unofficial channel. Pverall project seems legit and with enough marketing, work and partnerships it could shake targeted market. Missing blockchain devs in team. Too big softcap