Sentinel Protocol

Security intelligence platform for blockchain

[Short general description]: Sentinel Protocol overcomes the disadvantage of decentralization by turning it into an advantage for security. By utilizing a collective intelligence system created through harnessing the power of decentralization, Sentinel Protocol combines cryptographic functions and intelligence-based threat analysis algorithms to create a secure, innovative ecosystem.

 

According to Sentinel, everyone acting individually will not be a long term solution, but instead we should utilise our collective intelligence to act together in our mutual self-interest through a decentralized cyber security ecosystem.

 

[Main problems tackled]:  Sentinel recognises three main security issues that can affect the average cryptocurrency user: 

1) exposure to hacks

2) difficulty to identify attackers

3) the damage such attackers inflict upon crypto users becomes their own responsibility.

 

The key to various hacks is that they occur because victims are easy to target due to the open nature of the internet. The ideology of decentralization is central to both cryptocurrency and the internet, but it is impossible to say that blockchain implements perfect autonomy.

 

[Main contribution proposal]:

 

1) building a  Security Intelligence Platform (SIPB) for Blockchain

2) providing collective security intelligence solutions based on the decentralized and distributed nature of blockchain technology.

3) harnessing a group of security experts who may be widely distributed, yet collaboratively working on the same mission — preventing hacks, scams, or frauds against crypto assets

 

 

[Innovation]:        

 

1) blockchain as a security enabler

2) cryptographic functions and intelligence-based threat analysis algorithms to create a secure, innovative ecosystem.

3) security experts and vendors will be encouraged to contribute to building the threat database under the consensus mechanism and feedback from participants, or Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS)

4) through collective intelligence, the platform can most efficiently and effectively collect hacker’s wallet address, malicious URI, phishing address, malware hashes

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

Analysis

Team - Founders:
Are the founders known? Do they have relevant experience and connections?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
5
  • 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?
4
  • 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?
4
  • 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
4.31

Team

Member
Patrick Kim
Founder and CEO
Hae Min Park
Co-founder / Head of Operations
John Kirch
Chief Evangelist
Dayeol Lee
Core Development
Michael Zhou
Head of Threat Intelligence
Narong Chong
Head of Security Operations
Min Woo Ku
Head of Product
Karly (Soojin) Choi
Head of Marketing

Advisors

Simon Seojoon Kim
CEO at HASHED
John Ng
Partner at Signum Capital
JH Kim
Foundation Council at ICON
HongZhuang Lim
CEO at XSQ
Wong Lee Hong
Executive Advisor at Kyber Network
Kenneth Oh
Senior Partner at Dentons Rodyk & Davidson

Updates

Title
Published at
Introducing Sentinel Protocol
8 months ago
Cryptoland’s security that lets you have a good night’s sleep
8 months ago
Uppsala, the co-winner of the Kyber Network Developer Competition
8 months ago
So what is the solution to NEM hack and its kind?
7 months ago
Sentinel Protocol 101
7 months ago
The Pre-Sentinels Recruitment Progress Update
6 months ago
Sentinel Protocol and traceto Announce Partnership for Safer Blockchain World
5 months ago
Token Sale Information
5 months ago
Public Sale Important Announcement
5 months ago
Public Sale Upcoming Dates
5 months ago
Pre-Sentinels Recruitment Program Results
5 months ago
Sentinel Protocol and Bluzelle Form Partnership for Managing Decentralized Security Threat Data
5 months ago
Industry Leaders Aim to Plug Blockchain Security Holes With Sentinel Protocol
5 months ago
Sentinel Protocol FAQ
5 months ago
KYC Guide + Troubleshooting
4 months ago
Updated KYC and Public Sale Dates
4 months ago
Be Vigilant of Scam Attempts
4 months ago
Live AMA with Bluzelle CEO Pavel Bains
4 months ago
UPP Token Distribution Information
4 months ago