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.

I do not see this as a good idea in terms of the reciever. This will struggle to gain any type of adoption en mass. The lack of any financial or revenue models leads me to believe that investors will not have any opportunity for ROI.
Almost 0 blockchain experience within the team.
Again another real estate neiche market amongst many others.
I happen to know the global director of data and analytics for PWC and they have never heard of any partnership with this firm. This makes me questions as to the validity of the other stated partnerships.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.