Melonport vs ICONOMI comparison (MLN tokens, ICN tokens)

Good day EVERYONE. This is CryptoPortfolio project and my name is DAN. Many investors nowadays see a lot of similar projects coming to ICO stage. The problem of understanding the differences arises. And I want to take the responsibility of explaining those differences. Right now, we have two major players on digital assets management sphere in the form of ICONOMI and Melonport, both conducted successful ICOs, both listed on digital exchanges. Let’s try to compare them and find the best one.

In terms of money collected, the definite winner is ICONOMI, but bear in mind, that Melonport will have its second coin offering approximately in the beginning of 2018 and by then, the price can go much higher for one token.

Melonport has collected 227 000 of ethers during its ICO, it was the only cryptocurrency the project accepted. ICONOMI was able to secure 200 000 of ethers.
 Again, Melonport accepted only ethers, so bitcoins were off the table. ICONOMI also was able to collect 6 900 bitcoins and that’s not all.

Also, ICONOMI collected 4 mln LISK, 2,5 mln EUR, and 123 000 of USD.

The supply of coins in Melonport is limited to 1 250 000 melons, but the system has incentivization program which will reward module creators by distributing inflationary MLN tokens. The inflation rate is unknown, but it is known that inflationary tokens will be distributed according to the module usage (the more investors use module, the more MLN tokens will be distributed to module creators). ICONOMI limited its tokens to 100 mln ICNs.

At the moment, the investors of Melonport have 500 000 Melons, ICONOMI investors received 85 mln ICN tokens during the ICO.

So, Melonport investors now have about 40% of all MLN tokens, there will be second coin offering which will distribute another 500 000 Melons, and the final % owned by investors will stand at 80%. On the other hand, ICN investors received 85% of all tokens.

The capitalization of Melonport at the moment of video recording stands at $ 22 mln, while ICONOMI has capitalization of $42 mln. What about the ICO terms?

Nothing is of particular interest about the ICO terms of Melonport or ICONOMI. Still, let’s cover this point.

Melonport saved for its team and other interested parties 20% of all tokens, 40% of all tokens distributed to investors. Other 40% will be distributed during next offering in 2018. No bonuses here.

ICONOMI conducted ICO with bonus periods, standard ICO. 85% of tokens to investors, 15% to team and interested parties.

Let’s summarize the ICO results by Melonport and ICONOMI.

Melonport has collected $ 3 mln worth of ethers while ICONOMI has collected $ 10 mln worth of coins and fiat.

Melonport is considered to be a decentralized digital assets management platform while ICONOMI is considered to be more of a centralized platform.

ICO of Melonport was conducted without bonus periods. ICONOMI had bonus weeks.

Right now, Melonport is valued on different digital exchanges at $22 mln, ICONOMI is valued at $40 mln.

The differences were outlined by Daniel Zakrisson, check out his blog post on medium.

The first difference is technology. In case of ICONOMI it is centralized, while in the case of Melonport, it is decentralized. ICONOMI uses a traditional web application approach to build its digital assets management platform. Since similar web services have been built before (in traditional markets), this approach is much more predictable in terms of development work, technology and architectural design choices, costs etc. Melonport has advantages and disadvantages which are associated with decentralized systems. As you know, the blockchain-based businesses are not that researched, so Melonport will have to experience a lot of problems and be able to solve them firsthand.

What about performance? Of course, due to Melonport’s complete reliance on blockchain, there is going to be limitations when we talk about speed of the system. It is limited by number of transaction which are included in block, it is limited by the time it takes until next block is mined. Thanks god, it is a solvable problem which is going to be tackled by state channels (Raiden network). Raiden network is going online in the near future, so we hope for the successful adoption by Melonport and other Ethereum-based projects. ICONOMI will use the proven technologies which are fast and quite convenient, but centralized. So it is important not to forget about the single point of failure problem.

Melonport’s security will depend on many things which are reliant on how good the blockchain and smart contracts are. First, it must be mentioned that writing perfect smart contract is like coding the Soyuz rocket to International Space Station. Yes, it is that hard, but thanks God, it looks like Ethereum community is slowly bringing standardization of smart contracts, lowering the potential of bugs in them. Every project now has some kind of a check from well-known companies or persons in Ethereum. Another problem of Melonport’s complete reliance on Ethereum is the upgradability of smart-contracts, it is tough. But, the advantage here is that if the smart contract is good, it will exist as long as the blockchain itself not having a single problem. ICONOMI is centralized in security terms, it has advantage in the form of knowing potential risks and having ways of dealing with them. The problem here is the single point of failure, as always in centralized systems.

Of course, when we talk about the rolling out of the platform, Melonport will have to spend more time on its platform than ICONOMI. Also, Melonport will rely heavily on the modules of the 3rd parties, which will provide market information modules, fees modules, exchanges modules, etc. At the same time, ICONOMI has ability to adopt and upgrade much faster. But what platform is better? It is up to you to decide. Thanks for watching! Bye, until the next time!

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated CryptoPortfolio’s story.