Some aspects of the design stated in your whitepaper are good. The whitepaper is correct when it states that loads of altcoins are correlated.
However, to put that in other words, many rose during an altcoin bubble, then crashed later.
In the opening post of this thread, the global altcoins index is plotted in a graph which ends around November 1st. Since now is 3 months later, it should show through at least around the start of February instead. It looks like the index was dropping after perhaps a bubble peak, so I would want to see what happened to it over subsequent months.
With that said, a second graph in your whitepaper possibly already shows what would have happened: Near the start of November and beyond, the altcoin indices crashed hard. Since your fund apparently would have had not more than 30% of assets in Bitcoin (probably in completely unleveraged positions), even the gain in the Bitcoin portion meanwhile would probably not have prevented your total fund doing far less well from November onwards than a simple 100% Bitcoin unleveraged HODLer.
Anyway, earlier estimated percentage gains in fiat terms over the 2016-to-now time period aren't automatically particularly impressive to the crypto community. It isn't hard to make money in a bull market. Bitcoin itself went from $434 on January 1st 2016 to $1108 now, 255% of its original value, and that is for a mere HODLer with no use of leverage and stop-limit tactics. Although use of stop limits is better, a simple crude 2.3:1 leverage bitcoin long position would never have been liquidated and could have been turned into 500% or more of its original value meanwhile.
You plan on a "maximum" of up to 30% investments in Bitcoin, per the whitepaper, and, again, it is not apparent that you would be using any leverage or stop limits, so someone might be as well or better off just parking their funds in their own Bitcoin wallet.
...
Besides, if you are going to choose your various altcoins well, I am not seeing clear evidence of it so far. It looks like a large portion of your investments will be in presently high marketcap semi-old altcoins like those in the correlation table in your whitepaper (aside from whatever exact coins are the small marketcap group).
I am not convinced that anything much like an altcoin index fund really works well, especially keeping in mind that 2017 is not necessarily going to be a repeat of 2016. I actually tried nearly the equivalent of an index fund back when I was very new to crypto (by casually investing in and holding a huge multitude of coins), but soon learned better.
Some altcoins do make great gains, but typically the bulk of those gains are early, meaning that buying in months later after the first pumps is usually too late for much further return. For instance, an early investor in Ethereum or Dash would have made money, but those are probably lousy choices now, in fact with the latter at a bubble peak about to crash back down to a much lower support level, IMO.
Of course, diversification still has value in risk management, e.g. not all one altcoin alone, but pros tend to invest in a very select handful at the right times, not much resembling just an index fund.
Only very few altcoins are really suitable for continuously sustained HODLing, and worthiness is determined not by already-priced-in gains long past but by a far more special characteristic: present undervaluing.
For most other coins, it is particularly key to know when it is pump time and when it is dump time.
We will not be involved in any pump-and-dump schemes.
As a somewhat experienced trader knowing how much of crypto *really* operates, I would be more interested if you were going to do them. New players who don't think in pump and dump terms often get burnt. If not explicitly joining big pumping-and-dumping whales, at least much success can depend on riding the waves made by them.
----------------------------
Incidentally, given thread length and other indicators of community interest (as noticeable if having seen many past Bitcointalk ICOs), your ICO is presently enroute to end with tens to hundreds of Bitcoin, or even less -- not thousands. Hopefully you are aware of that. It takes fancier graphics and more to obtain thousands of bitcoin in an ICO. If your large team is real, the likelihood of being able to pay their salaries for long seems iffy.
----------------------------
With that said, the whitepaper's description of the Kepler product does sound potentially quite useful, for those who would rather make their own investing decisions but could benefit from new ways to monitor and handle a bunch of altcoins at once. Although you are probably not going to change plans based on a random poster's comment, if I were you, I would make the ICO about Kepler itself, at least as well.
Specifically, let funds be contributed for Kepler development, and then, in return, investors receive money from future Kepler sales, as well as having a license themselves. Tying Kepler sales revenue to a coin could be done by making purchases of in other currencies (e.g. dollars) involve the system temporarily converting the funds to the new coin (with a special exception only if negligible exchange liquidity at that moment), then permanently burning 50% of transacted coins.
In the process, the value of the rest of the coins would go up as more Kepler purchases happened. ICO investors and early buyers would be rewarded. The preceding is a little bit like how PEPECASH works but for a different product.
If you made an ICO for that, added a bunch of fancy graphics, and had a business plan just requiring under 100 Btc for the first stage of a two-stage ICO (the second stage gaining more funds after public demonstration of a partial alpha version), it could really work.
Now this:
... could be the good part, if the TaaS team doesn't simply run out of funds for development from their OP advertising the Iconomi-like parts more than the novel, unique parts.
