Smart contract platform on top of NEO’s blockchain

[Short general description]: Alchemint is a decentralized price-stable cryptocurrency management system runs on the blockchain of NEO. It creates high performance application-level digital currency through distributed ledger technology. A series of risk control measures like the mortgage of digital assets, the release of stable digital currencies, the management of the market value of collateral are implemented by smart contracts to establish a resilient, open, transparent and stablecoin issuance system.


[Main problems tackled]: Alchemint is not controlled by any individuals or organizations. It does not need audit companies or regular publication of reserved assets. Everyone is able to check real time market value of collateral, the circulation of stable currencies and the overall condition of the system on the public blockchain. Alchemint has a complete set of risk control measures to manage the collateral’s market value so that the fluctuating will not trigger crisis of the whole system. Anyone can issue stablecoin by mortgaging value-fluctuated NEO assets (or any digital assets approved by Alchemint Governance Committee) like sdusd with the exchange rate of 1 on USD (the currency can be euro or RMB). Since the sdusd is created, it can be used to pay like any other cryptocurrency, remit, store of value or top up in digital assets exchange to purchase other fundamental currencies of digital assets. 


[Main contribution proposal]:

1) Stablecoin SDUSD - sdusd is a cryptocurrency issued on the platform of Alchemint with the mortgage of neo and other digital assets. The price is relatively stable with the US dollars. Price is supported and stabilized by Smart Assets Reserve (SAR), commission lever and motivator from internal and external through Alchemint. 


2) Smart Assets Reserve - SAR is the most important technical component in Alchemint. It is a smart contract based on NeoContract. With the support of SAR, Alchemint is able to guarantee the security, transparency and audit able of all mortgaged digital assets. Efficient management operation can be done when the market value of the mortgage fluctuates. 


3) Target Price Stabilization Mechanism - The stablecoin sdusd inherits the advantages of digital currency and other digital assets that avoid huge fluctuation of currency’s value. It owes to the application of stabilization mechanism. Under this mechanism, the legal tender of sdusd, take USD as exam-ple, is set to the rate of 1:1 initially. They will gradually become soft anchoring afterwards.  When the sdusd and USD come with deviations, the feedback mechanism will be triggered. This mechanism aims to stabilize the rate between sdusd  and legal tender (USD) by adjusting the target price’s rate of change and incent the market to catch the chance of arbitrage.


4) Single-asset Mortgage Mechanism - During transitional period, Alchemint only accept neo as qualified mortgage assets. More categories of digital assets will be added as acceptable collateral. 


5) Multiple Assets Mortgage - The collateral of Alchemint will expand to multiple digital assets in the future. Those include other digital currencies (btc, eth, e.g.), digitized “real world” assets. Sometimes it is two or more combination of those. 


6) The Alchemist - an outside participant consists of individuals and automated program. The system has a penalty for forcible liquidation so that the alchemist will consistently looking for opportunities to find the SAR which need to be liquidated and repay its sdusd for comission. 


7) Oracle - SAR needs a real time market price to evaluate the necesity of triggering the compulsory liquidation. Alchemint also needs real time market price of sdusd to detemine the adjustment of incentive mechanism. All these price are external market price that can not be positively sensed by blockchain. 




Black Swan and coping mechanisms (although Alchemint has various risk control measures to safeguard the asset security of the stablecoin holders and the sustainable supply of the stablecoin, it is unavoidable that there are always uncertainties in the global financial markets and the impact of the Black Swan event always occurs. For the Alchemint system, we believe that the Black Swan incidents mainly come from two aspects. One is the sudden flashback of the collateral value which leads to Alchemint’s failure in executing measures for risk control as it is hard to cope with. The other one is the technical attack on the system platform)  through: 


a) Risk response that Market irrationality leads to a sharp devaluation of collateral - Alchemint sets a series of risk control management and Alchemists are willing to protect the system under the incentive mechanism 


b) Forecasting mechanism of market - In order to maintain the confidence towards value of stablecoin, how to monitor and forecast the market to spread risk before the extreme events happen is an important measure, except completing enough risk control measures coping with extreme events. 


c) Technical Failure or Under Attack - Alchemint is established on the foundation of Smart Contracts which may exist potential flaws and bugs. At early stage of the system, the greatest technical risks are malfunction caused by bugs and vicious technicians’ attack that target on code flaws. 

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
4.00 / 5.00
4.33 / 5.00
Token Economics
4.50 / 5.00
Business Evaluation
4.40 / 5.00
Hype and media presence
4.00 / 5.00


Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
  • 1. Unknown people. No serious background information available.
  • 2. Partial information available, no relevant experience.
  • 3. Background information available, no relevant experience.
  • 4. Solid, relevant background and connections available.
  • 5. Solid, well known, experienced and well connected founders.
Team - Advisors:
What level of commitment, experience and connections do the advisers bring?
  • 1. No reputable advisors with relevant experience.
  • 2. Few advisors with little to no relevant experience.
  • 3. Advisers with relevant experience.
  • 4. Reputable advisors with relevant experience and connections.
  • 5. High profile highly experienced, well connected and committed advisors.
Product - Technology Layer:
Is the product innovative? Does it contribute to the blockchain ecosystem?
  • 1. No, the product is just a clone with no contribution.
  • 2. The product is a dapp with minimal interest and little contribution to the ecosystem.
  • 3. The product is a dapp, exchange or protocol addressing a real problem or need.
  • 4. Innovative product offering a solution to a high interest problem.
  • 5. Innovative protocol tackling critical problems of highest interest.
Product - Proof of concept:
Is the proof of concept comprehensive? Does it address a real problem or need?
  • 1. No, incoherent concept or no need for it.
  • 2. Difficult concept to understand, hardly any need or problem to solve.
  • 3. Clear concept which addresses a real problem.
  • 4. Clear, well thought concept which addresses a real problem of high interest.
  • 5. Exceptional proof of concept addressing a critical problem.
Product - MVP:
Has the concept been tested? Is there an MVP? How far is the launch?
  • 1. Untested concept.
  • 2. Initial tests, no MVP.
  • 3. MVP ready, Alpha launch.
  • 4. MVP ready, Beta launch.
  • 5. Fully working initial product.
Token Economics - Token utility:
Does the token have any utility? Is it a core function to the network?
  • 1. No, the token has no utility.
  • 2. Token has a limited, unclear utility.
  • 3. The token has some added, but not inherent value.
  • 4. The token is embedded in the network and has inherent value.
  • 5. The token has both inherent and added value and is embedded at the core of the network.
Token Economics - Network effect:
Are strong network effects built into the system? Are incentives aligned to encourage the growth of the network?
  • 1. No network effects built in.
  • 2. Minimal network effects, unclear incentives.
  • 3. Network effects and incentives present.
  • 4. Solid network effects with clear incentives due to inherent utility.
  • 5. Strong network effects, aligned incentives and high utility value.
Business Evaluation - Valuation:
Is the valuation reasonable ? Sufficient but not too high for the scope of the project?
  • 1. No, the valuation is ludicrous, the project could do with 1/10 of the sum.
  • 2. Valuation is higher than the project would need. Likely a money grab.
  • 3. Valuation is reasonable for the scope of the project.
  • 4. Valuation is modest for the caliber of the project.
  • 5. Valuation is impressively modest relative to the high caliber of the project.
Business Evaluation - Market potential:
What is the market potential? Does the project look like it could penetrate the market and conquer the world?
  • 1. No clear market potential.
  • 2. Limited market potential.
  • 3. Reasonable market and growth potential.
  • 4. Solid market and growth potential.
  • 5. Exceptional market and growth potential.
Business Evaluation - Competition:
Does the project have competition? How strong does it look relative to its competition?
  • 1. Awful position competing with many strong players.
  • 2. Weak position facing strong competition.
  • 3. Reasonable position facing strong competition.
  • 4. Solid position facing weak competition.
  • 5. Exceptional position, facing almost no competition.
Business Evaluation - Supply sold:
Does the team distribute a reasonable amount of the tokens so as to encourage create strong incentives and network effects?
  • 1. Negligible supply, greedy team.
  • 2. Small supply, poor incentives.
  • 3. Modest supply, weak incentives.
  • 4. Reasonable supply, responsible team.
  • 5. Large supply, solid inventive, committed team.
Business Evaluation - Vesting:
Does the team have a sufficient stake to have aligned incentives? Do they have a vesting schedule implemented?
  • 1. Large stake, no vesting.
  • 2. Small stakes, no vesting.
  • 3. Modest stakes, no vesting.
  • 4. Reasonable stakes, modest vesting.
  • 5. Solid stake, healthy vesting.
Hype and media presence:
Is the project present on social media and chats? Is there interest for it?
  • 1. No presence, negative image.
  • 2. Modest exposure and no interest.
  • 3. Reasonable exposure and modest interest.
  • 4. Solid exposure and high interest.
  • 5. Exceptional exposure, high interest and considerable hype.
Final Score


Zhang Ting
Founder and CEO
Qi Feng
Zhang Wei
Product Director
Steel Chen
Development Engineer
Lei Geng
Development Engineer
Joe Wu
Development Engineer
John Rawls
Operation Manager
Stephen Hu
Community Manager
Musk Zhou
Product Manager
Neowo Xu
Operation Manager
Cheng Maoyong
Business Manager
Wendell Maclean
Design Director & Marketing Manager
Harvey Xu
Business Manager
Jonathan Quali
Leader of Alchemint Europe Communities
Yoon Jae Chung
Leader of Alchemint Korea Communities


Sun Ming
Fenbushi Capital Legal Advisor
Wang Yanming
Ph.D. in Mathematics
Chen Yu
Juxiu Capital Founder
Pauline Xu
Hayek Capital Founder
Liu Ming
Former COO of Tron / CSO of MAG / Founder of BPA
Cindy Fang
BK Fund Co-founder


Published at
Alchemint’s Introduction
1 year ago
Alchemint April Progress Report
1 year ago
Alchemint Public Sale Announcement
1 year ago
Alchemint Public Sale FAQ
1 year ago
Why Alchemint?
1 year ago
Alchemint Early Bird Whitelisting
1 year ago