Turn your smartphone into a blockchain powerhouse

[Short general description]: Zipper intends to build a mobile platform which brings blockchain based services to the masses by making them easy to use. This project aims to elevate our smartphones to blockchain powered devices which anyone can use.


[Main problems tackled]: Safety of private key and identity management. Zipper’s aim is to become the “iOS of the decentralized world”, by providing smartphone users seamless blockchain experiences while still being in control of their data. This aim will try to make it possible for anyone to access blockchain based services out-of-the-box in an easy and intuitive way while being in full control of their identity, transactions and data. 


[Main contribution proposal]: 

1) Painless private key handling - making paper wallets, complex interfaces user friendly.

2) From siloed to seamless user experiences - user can access decentralized services through one interface, identity and wallet.

3) Giving data control back to people - Zipper does not collect user’s data without permission, and is fully separated from the smartphone’s OS. User has full control on what data to share and with whom, and even the option to monetize her data.



1) Split the key in order to decentralise the risk - Zipper aims to follow the core purposes of decentralization and at the same time to bring blockchain services to the masses. 

2) In case your device gets lost, Zipper will make it so that you can disable the device and regain access to your account.

3) While using Zipper, you can imagine that your smartphone has an isolated container which only you have full control over — even the phone’s OS such as Android cannot access it without your permission. At the same time, accessing this container is as easy as any other app or widget on your phone.

ICO Rating Analysis
Team Evaluation
3.50 / 5.00
3.67 / 5.00
Token Economics
4.00 / 5.00
Business Evaluation
4.00 / 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


Dr. Antti Saarnio
Carsten Valdemar Munk
CTO & Co-Founder
Pasi Rusila
COO & Co-Founder
Tom Swindell
Principal Software Engineer
Jason Lam
Vincent Cheung
Chief of Hardware
Antti Enqvist
Marc Dillon


Teemu Päivinen
Currently Spacegrade and Zeppelin Solutions, Founder & Chairman of
Matthew Graham
Founder and CEO at Sino Global Capital


Published at
Here’s to the crazy ones — join us building the new blockchain era of smartphones
1 year ago
How Blockchain will disrupt the smartphone industry
1 year ago
Crypto report from Zipper’s Asia tour
1 year ago
The largest Korean Crypto fund Hashed participates to Zipper pre-sale
1 year ago
Zipper token pre-sale summary and learnings
1 year ago
How to turn our smartphones into everyday hardware wallets
1 year ago
Why we’re launching a Zipper community program and how to get involved
1 year ago
The Zipper Monthly Update #1
1 year ago
Zipper mid-month schedule update
1 year ago