So, what’s the difference between proof of concept, prototype, and MVP? Do these terms really have a place in the 2018/19 ICO Projects? We believe as the year draws its rugged utility tokens ICO curtains and raises the glimmering veil ushering in ICO regulatory illumination — these terms will now be synonymous to the least acceptable level of ICO success. One, therefore, needs to understand the importance of these terms if healthy ICO investment decisions must be made.
A few literature reviews have attempted to differentiate Proof of Concept, Prototype, and MVP. Some authors have even managed to classify the various forms of Proof of Concept. Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is an inexpensive version of the final product in its most basic form, normally a sweet spot between resource scarcity, time limitation, and the utility economy of the product function. In other words, it is an economical version of the product that only performs more of the essential and must-include basic stuff for fewer resources. MVP is well described by the analogy of a visionary’s exploration in the sparsely populated thick woods, relentlessly searching for the real client feedback with the intent to shape acceptability of the visionary’s solution to the pressing real-life problem. The flip side of MVP is a Prototype, although incomplete it is an end-user proven, functional model of the final product with or without demonstrable market acceptance. MVPs are developed from Prototypes, but the lean development theory always skips the prototype stage.
Most blockchain start-ups with interests in ICO have in the past been anemic to proof of concept and its associated terminologies since all that ICOs required to raise billions of funds heretofore, a good hyped idea backed by individuals with an exemplary crypto track record. Of course, we all know how the story ends! Over 90% of all ICO projects have only managed to deliver constant failure. Paolo Lacche , adjunct professor of Product Management and the University of Economics in Prague, who also previously served in Product Manager roles for Skype and Microsoft, explains the need to adopt a new approach to ICOs by shunning the “great-idea” based investment style lest all our ICO investments are wiped out.
What is Proof of Concept (PoC)?
Proof of Concept (PoC), is the technical realization with demonstrable proof that a particular idea can be implemented to solve a clearly defined set of problems in the marketplace. It is in its simplest terms of technical feasibility before resources are devoted to developing a solution to an existing market problem. Some authors have used this term loosely, but recent citations either restrict the definition to its initial form with little commercial-sense technical implementation (PoC software development) and thereafter a more commercially viable variant-marketplace implementation (PoC market).
Case Study
Africa and other developing countries have always had problems with the management of land records. It is not uncommon for double allocation of land assets to occur in these regions. Consequently, many investors lose billions of dollars annually. According to Mamicha & Co Advocates, financial institutions in Kenya continue to suffer losses that result from mortgage collateral that cannot be foreclosed due to the fraudulent double allocation of property titles and/or forged deeds. Whatever the case, these titles bear authentic seals and are backed by approved reciprocal entries in the government-owned central records hence making it very difficult to ascertain actual ownership details.
This will now change for the better. Developing countries can now solve this double allocation problem by encouraging their citizens to upload land information to the blockchain through the Land LayBy Listing (LLL). LLL protocols involve proof of stake, proof of authority, and zero proof protocols. The protocols are embedded within the central platform and ensure verifiable land ownership data is accurately represented in the blockchain. The deliberate choice of protocols is influenced by the desired outcome — avoid inheriting erroneous historical land registry entries and counteract the inherent civil service propensity to easily influence the land registry data integrity at will with impunity.
Land LayBy Technologies Ltd. has successfully posted several land transactions to the Ethereum testnet hence a successful PoC. But how will the land blockchain records preserve the client’s privacy entitlements?
Let’s explore the contents of rikerby etherscan (Ethereum explorer) search results for the hash quoted above, that consists of information of a block of land for sale located in a popular tourist destination, Naivasha, Kenya.
The image above displays the hash generated by an Advocate (a producer) through three easy steps:
Step one: Conducting due diligence on land ownership and transaction detail;
Step two: Accessing the LLL Dapp and notarize land transaction data; and
Step three: Posting the information though Dapp to the Ethereum testnet or mainnet in exchange for Harambee (HRBE) Tokens (the incentive).
The image below highlights in red the transaction hash, the transaction receipt status in green, and the blockchain data in blue.
What Land Information Should Advocates Post to the Public Blockchain?
Let’s closely examine the contents of the input data, as notarized by the producers. Producers accessing the Dapp can either be registered advocates, surveyors, financial institutions or trusted stakeholders. Their purpose is to notarize land data after conducting industry standard due diligence, which must be backed by peers through a validation consensus mechanism. The image below highlights the set of data that LLL posts to the blockchain. Needless to say, this data is in the public domain and could have social, legal and financial ramifications. The data’s impact would vary with the mode of data presentation.
Item one; Land ID: This represents a unique property identification number that can be structured to mask the conventional land ownership details until such a time when revealing such details is beneficial to the transaction beneficiaries.
Item two; Producer ID: This section represents the unique identification of the LLL producer. The producer remains anonymous to the public for obvious reasons.
Item three; Title Type: This field describes the type of Land Title as issued by the legal land registry.
Item four; Land Size: This part of the blockchain data represents the size of the listed property as determined by legal records provided by the anonymous advocates or producers.
Item five; GIS longitude coordinates: This section of the blockchain data represents the longitude coordinates at the central location of the property.
Item six; Client ID: This section of the blockchain data represents the unique identification number of the LLL client. The client remains anonymous to the public to preserve her/his privacy.
Item seven; GIS Latitude coordinates: This section of the blockchain represents the latitude coordinates at the central location of the property. Detailed property mapping coordinates that will at least outline the shape of the property as superimposed on google earth, will also be posted to the blockchain in subsequent trials.
Market & Software Development Proof of Concept (POC)
There are different forms of PoC in the product development cycle. For software products, even if the developers determine the technical implementation of the solution, the market must accept the solution or at least believe that the product, whether in prototype or MVP stage has the potential to solve the market pain points. A huge social media following, chocking pre-release orders and overall positive enthusiasm for the product functionality is a good indicator of market proof of concept. This must be validated by the Minimum Viable Product adoption. Some features that would indicate LLL successful market proof of concept specific to this industry include: –
1. Non-repudiation
Advocates should be accountable to the accuracy of the information they post to the blockchain. The LLL ensures that blockchain actors leave behind irrefutable audit trail.
2. Transferability of Digital Assets
Advocates oversee the transfer of land ownership information and therefore serve as conveyance partners mediating communication between the legal government land registry and the independent verification blockchain database of LLL.
3. Single Source of Ownership Truth/Independent Ownership Verification
Considering the aforementioned role of Advocates, it makes sense to incentivize these advocates as well as the LLL end-user (the landowner) to ensure the LLL database remains up to date at least for all the records stored by the system. This ensures that LLL delivers an immutable independent verification database devoid of the civil service interference.
4. Law Court Evidence Admissibility
Advocates acting on the LLL leave behind their unique fingerprints for every document handled while conducting due diligence. This information is captured more than once since the same process is repeated by different advocates for each property that undergoes the process of verification before it can be posted to the blockchain. This design of verification ensures that the evidence collected supports the final information available in blockchain in a Trial Court of Law.
5. Preservation of Privacy
The Client’s personal information is never posted to the blockchain. It remains anonymous to the public in order to observe privacy. Such information is only made available through the producers (advocates) in instances where a no-return intent to transact is confirmed by the producers (advocates).
What’s Next After Proof of Concept?
In lean development theory, Minimum Viable Product (MVP) development normally follows a successful PoC. In some instances, both software development PoC and Prototype development occur simultaneously, followed by MVP. Land LayBy’s MVP development took place quietly behind closed doors over the past year. As the product development team drafted the Land LayBy Listing whitepaper, the developers were busy evaluating user experience (UX) and acceptability of the MVP. Although not fully tested and/or publicized at the time, the development team had confidently concluded in no uncertain terms the software development PoC. The development team is now committed to automating the back-end system processes that manage the blockchain algorithms as well as the front-end aspects of the product, specifically the data collection process that would constitute the Beta product (an improvement of the MVP). Unlike many projects, the team’s focus is not on the ongoing presale ICO, even though the HRBE Token is an integral incentivization aspect of the business model. LLB continues to focus on product development, in order to make it possible for landowners in developing countries to gain access to the platform through “cash for HRBE Tokens” purchase plans as opposed to the crypto-based ICO platform.
One can explore several other successful technical PoCs that were recently posted to the test net:
1. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0x14ffc8b860f7c13e9db0f930e8c273aaea4f7e6e88207d437dbe085c5af11647
2. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0xf2218c2ea7609398dbbc5f6859a4cb7f3d6b206a317408453d9daa5b8ffc1b57
3. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0x49bab06197ae9741f5bca19544fe0eb2850ba6833d54226afd7c3d5b78d5fbcc
4. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0x98c92bd15c8e259038649e5254587801e495b9517371155df0f03b342f60edcd
5. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0x14ffc8b860f7c13e9db0f930e8c273aaea4f7e6e88207d437dbe085c5af11647
6. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0x3c1a03bcb07818d10de89c845b56b14824cabd675730cb13f6be5df3b0b31466
7. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0xbc57e72d19aed95aab4c39d00d87812a749209dbab8d130ce27ad6ff52518486
8. https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/tx/0x64abc862469239499cf3b14dbe6ffe76f702e53cefdd34107f679884074f49b9
Source: Crypto New Media
