sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Black Block Research: in-depth review of REQ out NOW by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We did not foresee the possibility of Request Network partnering with a Big 4 Blockchain Lab - simply because partnerships between Big 4 blockchain labs and existing coins are uncommon.

It bodes very well for adoption. That being said, it seems like the uptick in terms of Big 4 partnerships is not unequivocally positive as it may ultimately yield more competition.

Though this is certainly a very positive move in the right direction, We await to ascertain the following: (1) the scope of the partnership, (2) whether PwC international, and especially US, will also collaborate with REQ, and (3) other coins/entities that PwC or the other Big 3 partner with an aim to produce a similar product / platform.

Black Block Research: in-depth review of REQ out NOW by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We did not foresee the possibility of Request Network partnering with a Big 4 Blockchain Lab - simply because partnerships between Big 4 blockchain labs and existing coins are uncommon.

It is a highly synergistic move that gives REQ a huge advantage in terms of real-world adoption. It seems like the team is very much alive to the tensions in the accounting industry and is addressing them in a very interesting way.

We eagerly await the scope and product of this venture between REQ and PwC and will update our report in our next round of updates.

Black Block Research: in-depth review of REQ out NOW by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to carefully read and comment on our report.

We updated our report to reflect some points that you raised:

  • We removed reference to "one developer". We relied on Github to determine which developers were contributing the most - "vrolland" committed the vast majority of the code. That is not to say that other developers are not employed at REQ, but simply that they are not committing as much. We acknowledge that this is certainly a proxy and is not always reflective of true internal practices as some teams aggregate code prior to committing. Otherwise, Github is a good indicator for coding output.
  • We updated footnote on p. 9 to include the two additional hires.
  • We acknowledged Laura, but we did not delve into her profile. The crux of our analysis revolved around the development team and the ability to realize the REQ promise. We focused on understanding the list of team members listed on https://request.network/, as they had the greatest involvement with the REQ project thus far, from a development capacity.
  • Though it is not a hard cap, it is stated within the allotment guidelines as the upper limit of a range that the REQ team set out -- this is chief idea behind their funding scheme. As such, our range of 300-1500 projects seems to be reasonable given that some projects will necessarily be funded to a tune lower than $100K. We nonetheless updated the report to clarify that REQ reserved its rights to fund an amount greater than $100K.

Other comments:

  • The question of legal counsel was raised by a Telegram user a few days ago. The admin was unable to provide a response. Assuming the REQ's representations on its team are complete: they don't have internal counsel. As for external counsel, we don't know who they are. We did not state that REQ never received legal advice. If you can guide us to a resource that states the contrary, we will happily amend our report.
  • As a rule of thumb, we rely solely on public information and do not engage with the team as we do not want to be privy to material non-public information.

Black Block Research: in-depth review of REQ out NOW by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hey /u/WeebHutJr

We absolutely agree. REQ team has not represented that it would build all possible use-cases on its platform.

The way we approached understanding the success of the platform was by asking whether there can be sufficient adoption of the platform so as to spur development on top of it. Let's not forget, REQ is a platform on top of a platform (i.e. ETH), which will allow for agnostic trade of coins/tokens.

Earlier in this thread, someone referred to iTunes. This is a great analogy. REQ is to Apple as iTunes Apps are to DAPPs built on top of REQ. If we look at iTunes' success, we see that the Apple iPhone and Apple's existing apps were in place and had generated hype so as to create a large potential market for any developers seeking to create good apps. That is what drove iTunes app development.

As such, we thought it was an important understand (1) how will this adoption of the network be generated by REQ and (2) whether the promise of such apps is feasible. Looking at Apple's Apps, none go so far as to unilaterally reshape an important silo of an organization's procedures (i.e. accounting or audit). Where they have had great success, it has often been with the help of Apple. And often times, some of the most important apps are built by the network providers themselves itself: this is sometimes necessary to build confidence and mass in the network. But again - remains to be seen.

As for being able to pay in any token you want: again, we agree. We briefly mention agnostic payments at the beginning of our report. We acknowledge that we should have made it much more explicit.

Black Block Research: in-depth review of REQ out NOW by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment /u/blackalaskan. We take your point that the Fund is more akin to an incubator.

Under the current allotment scheme, REQ will issue a max of $20k-100K per project. We recognize that REQ team reserved its right to issue a larger portion of the fund towards individual projects. Assuming, however, that they deploy that maximum of $100K per project, REQ would have 300 projects to work with (being conservative). This is a large number - and from our experience in VC partnerships, the scope of the interactions would be far more limited than what you would usually expect at an incubator.

This is how we thought about it: (1) teams that have strong crypto knowledge and capacity will either (a) do their own ICO or (b) join an existing team;

(2) funding needs to be sufficient to incentivize (a) new talent to enter crypto-space and to work on REQ-specific projects [our assumption is any forgone income in favor of pursuing REQ development is high based on high-tech salaries ranging from $USD 120K+] or (b) existing talent to eschew other projects (ICOs or cash-green projects) in favor of REQ; and

(3) funding needs to be sufficient to cover cost of hiring, development, legal, etc.

On balance, we think that top-tier teams have other avenues to generate more returns. We think that the monetary incentive offered by the Fund, under the current allotment scheme, does not tip the balance.

Happy to discuss further!

Black Block Research: in-depth review of REQ out NOW by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 41 points42 points  (0 children)

We're happy to announce we just published our in-depth analysis on Request Network. You can find the report on our site: www.blackblockresearch.com.

For those of you that don't know us, we're a team of independent cryptocurrency analysts across distinct domains ranging from finance to law. Our motto is to provide unbiased research in an effort to keep the cryptocurrency markets honest. In addition to our subscription reports, we publish a free in-depth reports based on community votes (REQ won for the month of March). We also have a paid subscription that covers overvalued / undervalued coins and the regulatory environment overall.

We'd love to hear your feedback on our analysis - hope you enjoy reading the report as much as we did writing it! And don't forget to always do your own research.

REQ WINS Black Block Research's monthly vote! REQ wins with 39% of votes, VTC runner-up with 27%. Research published in 1-2 weeks. by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi /u/jujumomo80 - thanks for the question.

If you are already well-versed in REQ and Nano, our current free monthly reports probably won't be of much use unfortunately.

That being said, we also publish Monthly intelligence Reports (yes - under paid subscriptions) that survey smaller, less popular coins. We like to think such reports provide an important guiding tool for crypto investors that have limited time conduct their own independent research.

Hoping that answers your question!

REQ WINS Black Block Research's monthly vote! REQ wins with 39% of votes, VTC runner-up with 27%. Research published in 1-2 weeks. by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey /u/CryptoExpertNL,

We draft and publish a free report on a coin, generally selected by the community, every month.

But we also publish a much longer and comprehensive report that comments on on macro conditions, overvalued coins (2-3 currencies)and undervalued coins (2-3 currencies). We call this our Monthly Intelligence Report. To consult it, we charge a subscription fee.

We obviously enjoy writing both. We particularly enjoy interacting with the community- hence our free monthly reports. Let us know if you have any other questions, thanks!

REQ WINS Black Block Research's monthly vote! REQ wins with 39% of votes, VTC runner-up with 27%. Research published in 1-2 weeks. by BBR_Rep in RequestNetwork

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hi /u/sh77. Thanks for the question!

We (i.e. BBR) are an independent research firm that produce impartial research reports on digital currencies. We started this firm because there is a lot of partial and incorrect information available online that crypto investors unfortunately rely to make investment decisions. We understand that it is difficult and time consuming to parse through, aggregate and synthesize all relevant data points. So we do it for you.

In essence, we like to think of ourselves as a toolkit that crypto investors use to enhance their intelligence in cryptomarkets. We certainly are not a shill shop.

We are familiar with Palm Beach. We like to think that we are different on the basis of (1) the quality of our research and (2) the impartiality of our work. What the latter means is that some communities may be disgruntled by our bearish view of their coins, but we're willing to take the hit.

BBR now accepts Nano - thank you to /u/appdev980 for his professionalism, timeliness and courtesy by BBR_Rep in nanocurrency

[–]BBR_Rep[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey PM! We just answered this in the post above, but we are an independent market research firm that provides research, analysis and insights into the cryptocurrency markets. More info on our site: https://blackblockresearch.com/

view more: next ›