[ANN] [ICO CLOSED] Inchain - insurance for the crypto economy

[Sergey_Inchain]

Whats the minimum investment or the funds will be returned to contributors?

Here: https://medium.com/@inchain/inchain-ico-structure-and-timeline-a7043d90daef

[1715595452]

1715595452

[1715595452]

1715595452

[1715595452]

1715595452

[oleksii]

I'd like to explain bitcoin transaction signing in more detail.

1. Bitcoin balance will be secured by bitcoin multisig. 4 of 6 or something close to that.  We will post a detailed security model with risk analysis once we get to implementation. Here is an example of similar work of ours:
https://ambisafe.atlassian.net/wiki/display/AS/Wallet4

2. Ethereum contract will be aware of Bitcoin wallet balance.
3. Once event occurs that should trigger BTC transaction, Ethereum wallet will create transaction as an event, with the BTC address as one of the ethereum event parameters. In this way we are creating a "master record" of what should actually happen.

4. Our multisig wallet server software will be listening to the Ethereum contract events. Once Bitcoin-related event occurs, unsigned bitcoin transaction will be created. All signatories will get an email notification that something is waiting for their signature.

5. Every insurance committee member will sign in and sign transaction sequentially.

6. Once transaction has been posted to Bitcoin network, we can provide a cryptographic proof to Ethereum smart contract that transaction has been executed. Similar thing is already implemented in BTCRelay (https://github.com/ethereum/btcrelay)

We can semi-automate this schema by involving several bitcoin security companies. I'll explain other options in more detail tomorrow.

To investigate other solutions, one needs to learn about concepts of sidechain/drivechain and hybrid models (like Rootstock). What all of them have in common, is that there is no perfect implementation exists yet, so they all heavily rely on a number of assumptions. Rootstock for instance plans to use notaries, i.e. pre-selected authorities that will hold a single key each of a multisig bitcoin wallet, and will sign the transactions only when sure that everything is correct on a sidechain. This approach is the same as proposed by Andrey. There is no any better solution on the market yet, AFAIK.

[SpacemanOne]

I'd like to explain bitcoin transaction signing in more detail.

1. Bitcoin balance will be secured by bitcoin multisig. 4 of 6 or something close to that.  We will post a detailed security model with risk analysis once we get to implementation. Here is an example of similar work of ours:
https://ambisafe.atlassian.net/wiki/display/AS/Wallet4

2. Ethereum contract will be aware of Bitcoin wallet balance.
3. Once event occurs that should trigger BTC transaction, Ethereum wallet will create transaction as an event, with the BTC address as one of the ethereum event parameters. In this way we are creating a "master record" of what should actually happen.

4. Our multisig wallet server software will be listening to the Ethereum contract events. Once Bitcoin-related event occurs, unsigned bitcoin transaction will be created. All signatories will get an email notification that something is waiting for their signature.

5. Every insurance committee member will sign in and sign transaction sequentially.

6. Once transaction has been posted to Bitcoin network, we can provide a cryptographic proof to Ethereum smart contract that transaction has been executed. Similar thing is already implemented in BTCRelay (https://github.com/ethereum/btcrelay)

We can semi-automate this schema by involving several bitcoin security companies. I'll explain other options in more detail tomorrow.

To investigate other solutions, one needs to learn about concepts of sidechain/drivechain and hybrid models (like Rootstock). What all of them have in common, is that there is no perfect implementation exists yet, so they all heavily rely on a number of assumptions. Rootstock for instance plans to use notaries, i.e. pre-selected authorities that will hold a single key each of a multisig bitcoin wallet, and will sign the transactions only when sure that everything is correct on a sidechain. This approach is the same as proposed by Andrey. There is no any better solution on the market yet, AFAIK.

Thank you for the extended and substantial replies. I wanted to clarify for myself that the BTC funds within InChain will be controlled by people, not by the smart contracts. Smart contracts will maintain the transparency and accountability of the InChain inner transactions. But public audit of the BTC-related transactions seems to be a very complicated task. Will there be any tools to cross-check ethereum records and the corresponding BTC transactions? Maybe some transaction ID's that will be the same in both blockchains?

Did you consider another blockchains except Ethereum? What Ethereum benefits exist if its smart contracts don't control the funds but monitor them only?

[Inchain.io]

Actually, I expected for some excuses for not warning the community that you financial model is just an example and the real model will be different. You wrote that your exchanges list is an example in 30 days after the post was published. No warnings in the blog text.
Would you show this financial model to a venture investor? I doubt. Even if you did you wouldn't get the money.
So why do you show it to the community? Because you think they won't read it or will just trust you without any verifications.

If you say I'm wrong please tell me where I'm wrong.
All the numbers from your financial model are not real and will be different in the real product.
Number of exchanges - not real.
Each exchange share - not real.
Insurance premium - not real.
Coupon rate - not real.
Total amount insured - not real.
Thank you for mentioning about your survey and saying that conditions are 'editable'.

So if all the above numbers are just an example why do finalize your post with words 'As you can see Inchain earns in each case'? The conclusion is based on the example numbers that are far from reality. So you should write 'As you can see from our example InChain can be profitable but only with the numbers we gave you. They will be different in reality'. That would be fare at least.

Are you sure there will be bonds in your real financial model?
Are you ready to give me 100 BTC if there will be no bonds in your real financial model?

Well, we have never said that the list of the exchanges is the one we will be working with. We conducted a survey among those who are interested in the project and created a model based on their expectations.
Obviously, the platform is not not even in the development stage yet. All we can publish for now is our projections based on inputs and assumptions.
Regarding the blog post you refer to, it looks quite reasonable. However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.
Moreover, we have never claimed that we are going to stay away from the Chinese market.

[Inchain.io]

Actually, I expected for some excuses for not warning the community that you financial model is just an example and the real model will be different. You wrote that your exchanges list is an example in 30 days after the post was published. No warnings in the blog text.
Would you show this financial model to a venture investor? I doubt. Even if you did you wouldn't get the money.
So why do you show it to the community? Because you think they won't read it or will just trust you without any verifications.

If you say I'm wrong please tell me where I'm wrong.
All the numbers from your financial model are not real and will be different in the real product.
Number of exchanges - not real.
Each exchange share - not real.
Insurance premium - not real.
Coupon rate - not real.
Total amount insured - not real.
Thank you for mentioning about your survey and saying that conditions are 'editable'.

So if all the above numbers are just an example why do finalize your post with words 'As you can see Inchain earns in each case'? The conclusion is based on the example numbers that are far from reality. So you should write 'As you can see from our example InChain can be profitable but only with the numbers we gave you. They will be different in reality'. That would be fare at least.

Are you sure there will be bonds in your real financial model?
Are you ready to give me 100 BTC if there will be no bonds in your real financial model?

Well, we have never said that the list of the exchanges is the one we will be working with. We conducted a survey among those who are interested in the project and created a model based on their expectations.
Obviously, the platform is not not even in the development stage yet. All we can publish for now is our projections based on inputs and assumptions.
Regarding the blog post you refer to, it looks quite reasonable. However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.
Moreover, we have never claimed that we are going to stay away from the Chinese market.

One more thing, If people have their accounts insured, they might increase their exposure to exchanges and online wallets rather than cold storages.

[SpacemanOne]

Actually, I expected for some excuses for not warning the community that you financial model is just an example and the real model will be different. You wrote that your exchanges list is an example in 30 days after the post was published. No warnings in the blog text.
Would you show this financial model to a venture investor? I doubt. Even if you did you wouldn't get the money.
So why do you show it to the community? Because you think they won't read it or will just trust you without any verifications.

If you say I'm wrong please tell me where I'm wrong.
All the numbers from your financial model are not real and will be different in the real product.
Number of exchanges - not real.
Each exchange share - not real.
Insurance premium - not real.
Coupon rate - not real.
Total amount insured - not real.
Thank you for mentioning about your survey and saying that conditions are 'editable'.

So if all the above numbers are just an example why do finalize your post with words 'As you can see Inchain earns in each case'? The conclusion is based on the example numbers that are far from reality. So you should write 'As you can see from our example InChain can be profitable but only with the numbers we gave you. They will be different in reality'. That would be fare at least.

Are you sure there will be bonds in your real financial model?
Are you ready to give me 100 BTC if there will be no bonds in your real financial model?

Well, we have never said that the list of the exchanges is the one we will be working with. We conducted a survey among those who are interested in the project and created a model based on their expectations.
Obviously, the platform is not not even in the development stage yet. All we can publish for now is our projections based on inputs and assumptions.
Regarding the blog post you refer to, it looks quite reasonable. However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.
Moreover, we have never claimed that we are going to stay away from the Chinese market.

1. Exchanges list. The fact that the exchanges list is not final is quite understandable and acceptable. What is not acceptable is to include the exchanges/wallets that CAN'T be insured by InChain technically according to the insurance strategy announced by InChain itself. It's a sign of disparaging and unprofessional approach to the business.
For example, the aforementioned Bitsquare. InChain claims it will insure centralized web wallets/exchanges only.
Bitsquare is a dectntralized exchange and will never store users private keys. It can't be hacked in a way that allows InChain insure it.
Coinbase is questionable too. Not for technical reasons but because their wallets are insured already and there will be no  many clients willing to insure them twice.
Coinomi - private keys are stored on users devices only. Questionable. Not a web wallet.
Mycelium - not a web wallet. Questionable.
Electrum - not a web wallet. Private keys never leave clients device. Questionable.

Almost a half of the table is wallets/exhcanges that probably won't be insured by InChain due to its own policy.

I have an example for you. Let's assume I'm trying to open a vegetarian shop and need some money to start this business. You are my potential investor. I have prepared a presentation for you. One of my presentation part is a list of the basic products I'm going to sell. It looks like this:

- beef
- chicken
- lamb
- potatoes
- rice
- apples
- peaches

You are asking me: 'What does it mean, isn't it a vegetaian shop?'
I answer: 'Oh, it's just an example'
- Example of what?
- ...

Would you give your hard earned money to the applicant who doesn't even care to compose a realistic presentation?
I understand word 'example' as an event that can really happen in future and has a probability of more than 0. Unfortunately, the table from your financial model doesn't fit my definition because several exchanges/wallets will not be even considered for insurance.

2. Financial model
Not only the list of exchanges but the whole financial model will be different in the real product.
The blog post doesn't tell us anything about the start phase of the project and initial funding. But some forum posts give us more information.
In Russian thread Sergey mentions that $0.9-1.05M from $1.75M will go to the Insurance Fund.
This fact changes the financial model significantly. One million dollars is just omitted in your financial model example. At the start of the project ICO participants will take insurance risks too, there will be no bond holders from the start.
How do you think, one million dollars is worth mentioning in the financial model?

3. Your question.


However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.

I never said it is unrealistic. It is my estimation of the potential market. So I agree it is realistic. But with the existing financial model the ROI for ICO participants will be about 10% and is fully dependent on the insurance fund performance. The insurance fund will be composed of different crypto assets. So I don't understand an ICO investor motivation. He can just invest his funds into one of Iconomi funds or create his own portfolio with the same assets as your insurance fund. Adding the risk of losing all the profits (or even more if several hacks will happen during the first year, please remember that ICO investors will take the risks at the start of the project) is not worth of gaining additional 3% ROI. Moreover, there can be no dividends at all if the DAO votes accordingly.
As I mentioned before just holding your funds in BTC is a more safe and profitable strategy.

[someone111]

I must admit, that SpacemanOne is doing a good job. The discussion is discouraging me to invest money. Will just get bounty then. This is because I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal by inchain yet. However by inchain staying professional and not personally attacking the messenger or outright denial. So even if this project doesn't fly, I would look closely into follow up projects of this team.

SpacemanOne, please keep your excellent style arguing. If I may ask, what is your motivation in saving us investors from risky low profits? Any way you could monetize your skills? Wouldn't you be the perfect fit for icorating or similar? Or open an investment fund? Would love to see more of your work! If you're doing it just as a public service, you must be a saint and you should know I really appreciate it!

[Ondin]

I must admit, that SpacemanOne is doing a good job. The discussion is discouraging me to invest money. Will just get bounty then. This is because I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal by inchain yet. However by inchain staying professional and not personally attacking the messenger or outright denial. So even if this project doesn't fly, I would look closely into follow up projects of this team.

SpacemanOne, please keep your excellent style arguing. If I may ask, what is your motivation in saving us investors from risky low profits? Any way you could monetize your skills? Wouldn't you be the perfect fit for icorating or similar? Or open an investment fund? Would love to see more of your work! If you're doing it just as a public service, you must be a saint and you should know I really appreciate it!

Yes, I agree with someone111, but SpacemanOne even say where you were before 09/16/2016 

[ttg43]

I must admit, that SpacemanOne is doing a good job. The discussion is discouraging me to invest money. Will just get bounty then. This is because I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal by inchain yet. However by inchain staying professional and not personally attacking the messenger or outright denial. So even if this project doesn't fly, I would look closely into follow up projects of this team.

SpacemanOne, please keep your excellent style arguing. If I may ask, what is your motivation in saving us investors from risky low profits? Any way you could monetize your skills? Wouldn't you be the perfect fit for icorating or similar? Or open an investment fund? Would love to see more of your work! If you're doing it just as a public service, you must be a saint and you should know I really appreciate it!

Yes, I agree with someone111, but SpacemanOne even say where you were before 09/16/2016 

yep, right remark. for newbie he knows too much technical details. also he wrote in russian thread so i think its someones else acc trying to demotivate public to invest in Inchain. despite this, he raises questions that must be answered before the ico.

[Inchain.io]

1. Exchanges list. The fact that the exchanges list is not final is quite understandable and acceptable. What is not acceptable is to include the exchanges/wallets that CAN'T be insured by InChain technically according to the insurance strategy announced by InChain itself. It's a sign of disparaging and unprofessional approach to the business.
For example, the aforementioned Bitsquare. InChain claims it will insure centralized web wallets/exchanges only.
Bitsquare is a dectntralized exchange and will never store users private keys. It can't be hacked in a way that allows InChain insure it.
Coinbase is questionable too. Not for technical reasons but because their wallets are insured already and there will be no  many clients willing to insure them twice.
Coinomi - private keys are stored on users devices only. Questionable. Not a web wallet.
Mycelium - not a web wallet. Questionable.
Electrum - not a web wallet. Private keys never leave clients device. Questionable.

Almost a half of the table is wallets/exhcanges that probably won't be insured by InChain due to its own policy.

I have an example for you. Let's assume I'm trying to open a vegetarian shop and need some money to start this business. You are my potential investor. I have prepared a presentation for you. One of my presentation part is a list of the basic products I'm going to sell. It looks like this:

- beef
- chicken
- lamb
- potatoes
- rice
- apples
- peaches

You are asking me: 'What does it mean, isn't it a vegetaian shop?'
I answer: 'Oh, it's just an example'
- Example of what?
- ...

Would you give your hard earned money to the applicant who doesn't even care to compose a realistic presentation?
I understand word 'example' as an event that can really happen in future and has a probability of more than 0. Unfortunately, the table from your financial model doesn't fit my definition because several exchanges/wallets will not be even considered for insurance.

2. Financial model
Not only the list of exchanges but the whole financial model will be different in the real product.
The blog post doesn't tell us anything about the start phase of the project and initial funding. But some forum posts give us more information.
In Russian thread Sergey mentions that $0.9-1.05M from $1.75M will go to the Insurance Fund.
This fact changes the financial model significantly. One million dollars is just omitted in your financial model example. At the start of the project ICO participants will take insurance risks too, there will be no bond holders from the start.
How do you think, one million dollars is worth mentioning in the financial model?

3. Your question.


However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.

I never said it is unrealistic. It is my estimation of the potential market. So I agree it is realistic. But with the existing financial model the ROI for ICO participants will be about 10% and is fully dependent on the insurance fund performance. The insurance fund will be composed of different crypto assets. So I don't understand an ICO investor motivation. He can just invest his funds into one of Iconomi funds or create his own portfolio with the same assets as your insurance fund. Adding the risk of losing all the profits (or even more if several hacks will happen during the first year, please remember that ICO investors will take the risks at the start of the project) is not worth of gaining additional 3% ROI. Moreover, there can be no dividends at all if the DAO votes accordingly.
As I mentioned before just holding your funds in BTC is a more safe and profitable strategy.

1) Don't think it is worth discussing the list of platforms we might insure accounts of. As we said, those were proposed by the community. Feel free to propose any platforms you believe we should work with.

2) Why do you think there will be no investors in bonds at the very beginning? There is no established fixed income instruments in the market. This $1M will form the liquidity reserves placed in the cold storages. It also will represent the bottom line of the value of our coins as they will have some sort of intrinsic value in this case.

3) No disrespect but you are mixing several unrelated things together.
As an Investor you can invest in one of the Iconomi funds as you mentioned or invest in the Inchain DAO. To simplify the case, let's say they perform equally. Thus the difference is that in the Inchain DAO case the participants may vote for not paying dividends and to increase the reserves. This will increase the intrinsic value of our coins because the reserves belong to the Inchain DAO. If you are not happy with the decision made by the majority of the DAO you can freely sell you tokens and the price of which will reflect the increase in reserves. So you will get your share of profits anyway.
If you decided to invest in bonds, you just diversify your investment portfolio having both fixed and non fixed income instruments. Your return as the bond investor does not depend on the DAO performance at all. All you should be concerned with is the hacks.

Overall, we should assess different types of investments such as crypto currencies and crypto currency funds, bonds and the DAO separately as they imply different types of risks and rewards.

[nixoid]

Will there be any tools to cross-check ethereum records and the corresponding BTC transactions? Maybe some transaction ID's that will be the same in both blockchains?

I see no problems in embedding this into blockchain explorer. A script that will go through new blocks of bitcoin every X minutes and update cache with the most recent transactions mapping. We already did similar things several times.

Did you consider another blockchains except Ethereum?

One of the core ideas of the project is to use smart contracts instead of legal contracts. Therefore we consider any blockchain that supports smart contracts. So far Ethereum is the most mature project with this feature. If something better shows up - we'll consider using it instead.

What Ethereum benefits exist if its smart contracts don't control the funds but monitor them only?

This is not exactly correct. Smart contracts control the funds, but for now only in Ethereum network. We need Ethereum to implement insurance policies logic, risk models, interaction with oracles etc. Financial transactions is just a tiny part of the project.

[thepo1m]

Actually, I expected for some excuses for not warning the community that you financial model is just an example and the real model will be different. You wrote that your exchanges list is an example in 30 days after the post was published. No warnings in the blog text.
Would you show this financial model to a venture investor? I doubt. Even if you did you wouldn't get the money.
So why do you show it to the community? Because you think they won't read it or will just trust you without any verifications.

If you say I'm wrong please tell me where I'm wrong.
All the numbers from your financial model are not real and will be different in the real product.
Number of exchanges - not real.
Each exchange share - not real.
Insurance premium - not real.
Coupon rate - not real.
Total amount insured - not real.
Thank you for mentioning about your survey and saying that conditions are 'editable'.

So if all the above numbers are just an example why do finalize your post with words 'As you can see Inchain earns in each case'? The conclusion is based on the example numbers that are far from reality. So you should write 'As you can see from our example InChain can be profitable but only with the numbers we gave you. They will be different in reality'. That would be fare at least.

Are you sure there will be bonds in your real financial model?
Are you ready to give me 100 BTC if there will be no bonds in your real financial model?

Well, we have never said that the list of the exchanges is the one we will be working with. We conducted a survey among those who are interested in the project and created a model based on their expectations.
Obviously, the platform is not not even in the development stage yet. All we can publish for now is our projections based on inputs and assumptions.
Regarding the blog post you refer to, it looks quite reasonable. However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.
Moreover, we have never claimed that we are going to stay away from the Chinese market.

One more thing, If people have their accounts insured, they might increase their exposure to exchanges and online wallets rather than cold storages.

I think this assumption is valid, people will tend to  keep more Bitcoin on the exchange and use onlinewallet that is insure, this even happen in real life.

[wannarahaa]

I just received an email regarding Inchain, so its now final the ICO starts on 26th of October, its a good date. Just in time when the rest of the dumpers of ICONOMI get to invest on Inchain  Hope to see the target 5M will be achieved in 4 weeks.

Really! It's a very good time!

Inchain must be the biggest ico after firstblood and singulardtv, I hope the threshold for 1.75M will be achieved.

[Adykingcity]

hi op, tell me about india translate,is it still available?

[Sergey_Inchain]

What will be the price of Inchain ICO on average?

Hi, it has no determined price because

The total tokens supply stands at 100 million.
15 million tokens are reserved for bounties and the development team in the following proportions:
- 1 million tokens will be distributed to early supporters. Please check additional details below.
- 5 million tokens are reserved for strategic partners and backers.
- 9 million tokens are withheld by the development team.

The remaining 85 million tokens will be distributed in the ICO procedure to participating users based on their contribution in the total amount of the funds raised. The sale procedure will be taking place at http://ico.inchain.io

[Sergey_Inchain]

I just received an email regarding Inchain, so its now final the ICO starts on 26th of October, its a good date. Just in time when the rest of the dumpers of ICONOMI get to invest on Inchain  Hope to see the target 5M will be achieved in 4 weeks.

Really! It's a very good time!

Inchain must be the biggest ico after firstblood and singulardtv, I hope the threshold for 1.75M will be achieved.

Thank you)

[Sergey_Inchain]

hi op, tell me about india translate,is it still available?

Hi, looks here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upkIGm3giNKmke90TrKrtyqEkakjPnb0LPnoQhLVCvk
Indian is not booked.

[CoinMega]

hi op, tell me about india translate,is it still available?

Hi, looks here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upkIGm3giNKmke90TrKrtyqEkakjPnb0LPnoQhLVCvk
Indian is not booked.

Hey, I have already done the Hindi (Indian) translation. We had talked in PM.

[Adykingcity]

hi op, tell me about india translate,is it still available?

Hi, looks here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upkIGm3giNKmke90TrKrtyqEkakjPnb0LPnoQhLVCvk
Indian is not booked.

ok tanks, slot full?

[Sergey_Inchain]

hi op, tell me about india translate,is it still available?

Hi, looks here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upkIGm3giNKmke90TrKrtyqEkakjPnb0LPnoQhLVCvk
Indian is not booked.

Hey, I have already done the Hindi (Indian) translation. We had talked in PM.

Hi, sorry. Did you register here? : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upkIGm3giNKmke90TrKrtyqEkakjPnb0LPnoQhLVCvk

I don't see Hindi there...