- A Comprehensive Fundamental Analysis on COSS
Report by: Dan Zuller, CFA
COSS’s website: https://coss.io/
COSS’s white paper: https://coss.io/documents/coss-whitepaper-v3.pdf
COSS’s Earnings Calculator: https://www.cosscalc.com/
My referral link: https://sso.coss.io/api/invite/BS7VFT0KVZ
Disclosure This is not investment advice and should not ever be taken as if it is any kind of investment advice. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own personal thoughts, opinions and findings, and does not necessarily reflect those of my employer. I am not receiving compensation for this article. This is meant to serve as an invitation for prospective investors to follow through on their interest in COSS and examine such interests in the context of their overall financial goals, risk-profile and portfolio strategies. Please conduct your own thorough research before investing in any cryptoasset.
Table of Contents:
I. What is Crypto-One-Stop-Solution (COSS)?
II. The Problem & The Solution
III. Investment Thesis, Team Analysis & (Attempted) Valuation
I. What is Crypto-One-Stop-Solution (COSS)?
C.O.S.S PTE LTD (aka COSS) is a Singapore-based startup with an operational digital platform at https://coss.io that aims to solve the existing user experience issues related to cryptocurrencies by encompassing all features of a cryptocurrency ecosystem in a single portal. COSS is a 100% self-funded project that did not rely on any external investments prior to and upon its launch. It is currently in beta.
It is important to note that not all cryptoassets are cryptocurrencies, as Chris Burniske and Jack Tatar mention in their recent book Cryptoassets: The Innovative Investor’s Guide to Bitcoin and Beyond: “We would not classify the majority of cryptoassets as currencies, but rather most are either digital commodities (cryptocommodities), provisioning raw digital resources, or digital tokens (cryptotokens), provisioning finished digital goods and services.” As such, a cryptocurrency is a digital currency serving as a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value that makes use of cryptography to verify the transfer of funds and regulate the generation of units, while operating independently of a central bank by means of blockchain technology.
Blockchain technology pertains to a distributed database (i.e, a ledger) that collects the information about transactions and shares it among a distributed network of computers. Some blockchain applications are more decentralized than others (note distributed does not mean decentralized), but that is beyond the scope of what I’m focusing on in this piece. If you wish to read up more on the decentralization vs. centralization tradeoff found in most cryptoasset projects, I highly recommend reading this article published by Larry Sukernik. For purposes of this article, it is important to note that at present, COSS is a centralized project. However, the future of COSS goes far beyond the existing structure and functionality, and will reach the point in the future when it will be completely autonomous, decentralized, and run or managed as a decentralized autonomous organization (“DAO”).
COSS is a revenue-generating ERC-20 token run on Ethereum’s blockchain that aims to combine the most popular cryptocurrency services and products such as a payment gateway / point-of-sale (“PoS”), an exchange, a merchant list, network value (market cap) rankings, a marketplace, an e-wallet, various coin facilities and a mobile platform. While this product offering may appear ambitious, the COSS team has been focusing on one product at a time (currently, focus is on the exchange) since they launched in late 2017. The COSS platform aims to offer multiple cryptocurrency-related services in one place, and aims to unify all transactional aspects that are usually managed by means of fiat money. It is important to note that the approach of bringing cryptocurrency to mainstream PoS is not new, and other projects, like OmiseGo (OMG) are successfully growing in other markets with this same goal. However, COSS is unique in that COSS’s DAO shares 50% of the platform’s fee revenues with its registered token holders on a weekly basis (the revenues are accrued in the DAO on a weekly basis). Such revenue is generated by the transaction fee when transactions in bitcoin, ether and other cryptoassets supported by COSS are carried out on its exchange and/or through its PoS / payment gateway.
COSS tokens from its initial coin offering (“ICO”, or “initial cryptoasset offering” as some like to call it) were released and started officially trading on the market in late September 2017. According to the whitepaper, COSS’s token allocation plan is as follows:
· 25,000,000: Pre-ICO
· 130,000,000: ICO
· 30,000,000: Reserved for Developers*, Staff*, Strategic Partnerships*, Operations
· 10,000,000: Reserved for COSS Affiliate Program
· 5,000,000: Reserved for Shareholders*/Board of Directors* & Advisory Board**
· Maximum supply: 200,000,000 tokens
* COSS specifies in its whitepaper that tokens allocated to Developers, Staff, Strategic Partners, Shareholders and Board of Directors are locked for 180-days from the end of the ICO (unlock date of March 6, 2018).
** COSS also specifies in its whitepaper that tokens allocated to the Advisory Board are locked for 90 days (unlock date of December 6, 2017).
COSS claims that all the remaining tokens that haven’t been sold after the ICO were placed into a vetted/audited smart-contract servicing as the COSS Charity Foundation. The funds are transparent due to their placement on the Ethereum blockchain, and are donated to charities vetted by the Board of Directors of COSS.
The following picture provides an illustration of the initial token allocation plan.
COSS completed its ICO on September 6, 2017 with $3,168,713 (source: https://www.tokendata.io/) or 8,245.45 ETH of organic proceeds raised (~3.8% of the hard cap of 216,667 ETH that COSS was initially seeking). At the time of the ICO, the conversion rate was 1 ETH = 600 COSS, which in turn implies ~4.95 million COSS tokens were originally sold. However, given the funding achieved by both the pre-ICO and the ICO was considerably below expectations, COSS awarded early adopters with 10x the COSS tokens they originally purchased.
As will be demonstrated later from the COSS team’s interviews, COSS was not properly prepared going into its ICO, hence its inability to raise funds near its stated target. However, as of the date of this article, the team has been managing their funds well, and stated that they are not financially constrained by any means.
At the time of the writing of this article, CoinMarketCap reported a circulating supply for COSS of ~64.9 million tokens and a total supply for COSS of 104 million tokens (as of the date of this article). However, according to the COSS team, the correct circulating supply is 104 million, and the team has been attempting to communicate with CoinMarketCap to correct this. Additionally, of the 104.0 million total supply, according to COSS’s DAO as of January 28, 2018 (Ethereum Block #4986741), 98,283,923 COSS tokens (~94.5% of current total supply) were registered with the DAO. This means that while 104.0M tokens are outstanding as of the date of this article, the DAO only shares 50% of the platform’s fee revenues with approximately 98.2 million registered COSS tokens. A token is considered registered if it is either held in the COSS wallet on COSS’s platform, or held in an external wallet (e.g., cold storage) with an executed smart-contract that enables COSS’s DAO to track a given investor’s COSS tokens via a unique “Token Based Fee Split Allocation Identifier” provided by COSS. Any unregistered COSS tokens do not participate in the weekly fee revenue sharing mechanism.
II. The Problem & The Solution
One of the current challenges in the cryptocurrency sector of the cryptoasset ecosystem is the absence of a one-stop-solution that would bring various services together into a single user-friendly ecosystem. Additionally, transferring funds across the world in the present is expensive and time consuming, and many believe blockchain technology will enable fee-less, instantaneous transfers via money over internet protocol. Accordingly, COSS believes cryptocurrencies have the prerequisites to become a viable replacement for fiat money over the Internet, “allowing millions of customers, including merchants, startups, businesses, charities, etc. as well as the unbanked individuals to gain access to the most technologically-advanced payment methods” (source: COSS whitepaper). COSS aims to cater to its users a comprehensive experience where the user can access many available cryptocurrency services and products in the same place at the same time, such as a payment gateway / PoS, an exchange, a merchant list, network value (market cap) rankings, a marketplace, an e-wallet, various coin facilities and a mobile platform.
III. Investment Thesis, Team Analysis & (Attempted) Valuation
COSS claims to have a range of unique features that could make it an attractive play for prospective investors. Though, at an initial glance, their product offering may appear overly ambitious, and as a result, may discourage prospective investors that prefer focus over complexity. Fortunately, the COSS team has been focusing on one product at a time (currently, focus is on the exchange) since they launched their beta version in late 2017. However, candidly, only one feature caught my attention as a value proposition: the profit-sharing. To me, this feature enabled me to view COSS as both a potentially high-interest paying savings vehicle and a mechanism for building-up a mini-cryptoasset mutual fund over time. This was enough value proposition to get me interested. Anything else in COSS’s product offering that comes to market in addition to the foregoing, to me, is a plus.
It should be noted that the weekly fee-revenue sharing conducted by the DAO is *not* distributed to COSS token holders, but rather such fees are kept in the DAO until COSS token holders elect to convert and/or distribute their weekly profits into ERC-20 tokens stored in their local or hardware wallets. Such a conversion/distribution process entails that registered COSS token holders execute a smart-contract via the DAO, and pay a small gas cost (in ETH) in order to push their smart-contracts through. Thus, while many prospective investors may consider the weekly profit sharing mechanism to be a “dividend” distribution, it is important to note that, by definition, this mechanism is not a dividend distribution as nothing is distributed automatically, but rather at the command of registered COSS token holders in return for a small fee. COSS structured their project this way for legal purposes. If a user does not have sufficient funds to push a smart-contract, the user is not entitled to his/her pro-rata of the fee revenue share. Additionally, this enables users to give back to the network.
A considerable portion of the below analysis comes from the information made available from the interviews conducted by Raphael Blouet, a COSS community member, who flew out to Singapore to spend an entire week with the COSS team in order to get to know them better. (Thank you, Raphael and the COSS team, for taking the time and making the effort to gather and share this information to the public). Several other important COSS team members exist that are not mentioned below; such team member biographies and duties can be found in the whitepaper and on COSS’s website.
Rune Evensen (Co-Founder/Visionary Officer)
Praveena Prabha (Head of Compliance)
Mong Suan Yee (Engineering Director)
Objectively, I see some strengths and potential concerns with COSS’s team.
Key Potential Concerns
- New Team & Geographic Separation: At the time of this article, COSS appears to be focusing on building the core in-house team. Ideally, such a team would have already been formed prior to launch. Additionally, the fact that the COSS team members are geographically separated in different countries (Singapore, Amsterdam & Romania) may hinder the COSS team’s ability to develop a robust and inspirational culture with little attrition. They team may still accomplish this, as the world is increasingly becoming more technologically advanced and remote, but nonetheless there is risk that they may not.
- A Very Ambitious Roadmap: Challenging goals are good growth motivators. However, when something is too challenging, that can become a problem. The team has set out to build a highly complex cryptocurrency solution, one which requires deep engineering and product experience. While Mong Suan Yee appears to be at the forefront of organizing the right dev team that COSS needs, the risks of mis-hiring exist, both in terms of the right talent and in terms of a misaligned fit within COSS’s values. The demand for blockchain technology engineers and developers at present is surging, and the (global) supply is not keeping up. Investors have to hope that the COSS team makes the right hiring decisions, even if it takes longer to hire the right team member. Finding the right talent and cultural team fit will position COSS for greater long-term future success, as opposed to settling on mediocre talent with the goal of hitting short-term milestones.
- Lack of Github Presence: COSS is not an open-source project (as of now), and its lack of Github presence may be concerning for some that use this as a “screening” tool when analyzing prospective investment opportunities. However, it should be noted that COSS created a Trello board and 80+ devs are helping out. The volunteer devs are giving the COSS team feedback and coming up with solutions (i.e., security, speed, scalability). Some of the devs contributing help are working for Microsoft, Facebook and other Fortune 500 companies. So while the lack of Github presence may be concerning to some, COSS is very much getting feedback from an established dev community, which is certainly better than nothing.
- Rune’s Available Time to Lead: While Rune’s dedication to acting a support role on Slack and Telegram may be seen as a positive in terms of strengthening the COSS community, it may also be seen as a negative in the sense it takes away valuable time that Rune could be using to lead COSS. Balance is key. Rune claims that once the team is able to take over the support role in a way he is satisfied with, he will return to leading COSS full-time.
- (Very) Short Lock-Up Period: As addressed previously, additional COSS tokens will be allocated to developers, staff, strategic partners, shareholders and board of directors at the expiration of the 180-day lock-up period from the ICO (which is estimated to be on March 6, 2018). Generally speaking, 180-days for a lock-up period is low, especially within modern day ICO standards. There is a risk that eligible team members may liquidate their tokens upon receipt and completely bail on the project. To my knowledge, COSS has no defense mechanism for this at the time of this article. In hindsight, a longer lock-up period (i.e., 2–4 years) would have been preferred. Nonetheless, come March 2018, investors have to hope the team is deeply committed and loyal to the project for the long-term, and that the lock-up period expiration doesn’t change anything. At the time of this writing, I have no reason to believe this will happen, but objectively, the risk nonetheless exists.
- Rune’s Leadership: Rune appears to have earned a highly respectable reputation within the COSS community, largely due to his honesty, transparency, integrity and dedication to seeing COSS succeed. Rune does not shy away from admitting when mistakes are made; the interview with Raphael Blouet demonstrates just that (particular examples include the lesson learned from COSS raising less than 5% of its ICO target, as well as the recent subpar rollout of COSS’s new user-interface). However, a major strength I see with COSS is the team’s ability to acknowledge a mistake, find a timely solution, and learn from the experience. After all, Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb on his first try!
- Engineering Power: As the leader of COSS’s engineering team, Mong Suan Yee brings tremendous expertise onboard. Mong has built engineering teams and engines from scratch for several companies in the past, the latest of which was for BLoyalty I, where an engine was built to cope with 5 million users. Mong is also tasked with helping COSS scale in terms of resources, in terms of team and in terms of technology. Additionally, Mong is now in charge of systems testing, and should be in a position to identify any bugs or errors prior to a product launch. Moreover, Mong is helping COSS with merchant integration as well as a mobile app, two additional things she is confident will boost COSS’s growth in the future.
- Security: The team recommends only leaving on exchanges what is intended to be traded, and sending the rest to hardware wallets. Nonetheless, security is a top priority for COSS, and this is demonstrated by COSS’s regular penetration testing. Additionally, COSS is looking to make two-factor authentication mandatory for users, which will help enhance security.
- Compliance: Praveena also brings significant value-add to COSS. Despite the fact there is ambiguity in terms of regulation regarding cryptoassets at present, Praveena is focusing on setting COSS up successfully for future regulation. According to Praveena’s interview, Singapore is going to pass a cryptoasset bill though parliament sometime in April 2018. Once that is done, COSS has to apply for several licenses, all of which need certain types of requirements to be met. One such requirement is know-your-customer (“KYC”), something that COSS is already incorporating locally and is planning to do overseas, particularly with United States users. Praveena has also been successful in partnering with suitable banks and credit card partners in an effort to help COSS introduce fiat into its ecosystem, something that is expected to launch in March 2018.
(Attempted) Valuation Analysis
Generally speaking, valuation is known to be both a science and an art. While it can be considered best practice to try keep analyses of a cryptoasset’s potential as objective and as factual as possible (the science), unfortunately assumptions are inevitable (the art). That said, wherever assumptions are used in my analyses, I tried to keep them as conservative as possible so as not to overhype the potential.
Additionally, many claim that attempts at valuing emerging technologies such as cryptoassets are essentially taking shots in the dark. They’re probably right (however, I shoot anyway). That said, the findings of the below analyses are not meant to be heavily relied upon; rather they are meant to serve as invitations for conducting your own thorough research and as frameworks for identifying COSS’s value drivers and the potential value creation opportunity over time.
Valuation Analysis #1 — Risk-Adjusted Returns vs. Peers (Sharpe Ratio)
The Sharpe Ratio was derived in 1966 by William Sharpe, and it has become one of the most referenced risk/return measures used in traditional finance. The Sharpe Ratio is a measure of volatility-adjusted performance and is calculated by dividing the absolute returns by the volatility in order to calibrate the returns for the risk taken. The higher the Sharpe ratio, the more the asset is compensating investors for the risk such investors are taking.
Given COSS recently ICO’d in the third quarter 2017, historical data for this analysis was limited to a scope of 90 days. Peers selected for this analysis include Kucoin, BNB and OmiseGo. Cryptopia appears to have a fee-sharing mechanism as well for hodlers (yes, “hodlers” for crypto, not “holders” :P), however given its extremely recent launch and limited history of trading, it was not used for peer analysis. It is important to note that these selected peers represent estimates at best. Clearly, it would have been most desirable to assemble a group of peers exactly like COSS. However, it became apparently early in my search that there were no peers that perfectly matched. Therefore, I broadened my search to select a group of peers with some element of comparison to COSS for valuation purposes but not so much as to impair my analytical findings in the event such comparisons were little or remotely analogous to COSS. Below are some high-level similarities (note these are not all-encompassing, as there are a number of other similarities between the following projects and COSS not listed here):
· Kucoin has economic similarities to COSS in that token hodlers are entitled to a 50% fee split allocation;
· BNB also has somewhat economic similarities to COSS in that BNB tokens are used to halve fees (i.e., if you use the coin to pay for exchange fees, you get a 50% discount);
· OmiseGo, similar to COSS, has plans to offer businesses and users a mobile e-wallet that will run on the OMG decentralized exchange in order to provide users payments, remittances, payroll deposit, business-to-business commerce, supply chain finance, asset management & trading and more.
The Sharpe Ratio below was calculated using total capital appreciation over the subject measurement period. For consistency, volatility was computed by taking the standard deviation of the daily price changes. Typically, I’d have used the average of the weekly returns over the subject period as well as the weekly volatility, however, due to the lack of long-term data, daily volatility was used. By dividing the absolute return over the period by the volatility, we calibrate the returns for the risk taken.
In comparing COSS to its respective peers over the last 30 days, we observe that COSS had the highest volatility but also the highest returns, resulting in the highest Sharpe Ratio over that period. Over the last 30 days, COSS compensated investors almost 5 times more for the risk they took than Kucoin did, over 5 times as well for the risk they took than BNB did, and substantially more for the risk they took than OMG did. The foregoing suggests COSS generated the most attractive risk-adjusted returns for investors over the last 30 days relative to its peers.
In comparing COSS to its respective peers over the last 60 days, we observe that COSS again had the highest volatility but the second highest returns, resulting in second highest Sharpe Ratio over that period (after Kucoin). Over the last 60 days, COSS compensated investors ~38% less for the risk they took than Kucoin did, twice as well for the risk they took than BNB did, and over 10 times as well for the risk they took than OMG did. The foregoing suggests COSS generated the second most attractive risk-adjusted returns for investors over the last 60 days relative to its peers.
In comparing COSS to its respective peers over the last 90 days, we observe that COSS once again had the highest volatility and the highest returns, resulting in the highest Sharpe Ratio over that period. Over the last 90 days, COSS compensated investors 4.5 times as well for the risk they took than Kucoin did, ~15% more for the risk they took than BNB did, and almost 4.5 times as well for the risk they took than OMG did. The foregoing suggests COSS generated the most attractive risk-adjusted returns for investors over the last 90 days relative to its peers.
The foregoing is not meant to demonstrate COSS has a track record for generating the highest risk-adjusted returns for investors relative to its peers, but rather to demonstrate that it does compensate investors for the risks they take (several times over, in fact). In my opinion, this is a crucial first step that should be taken when considering investing in a cryptoasset. It is also imperative to note that these are extremely early-stage emerging technologies in high-growth, unpredictable phases. In particular, COSS just began trading toward the end of September 2017, and with the cryptoasset market in present day, most projects are typically speculated upon that results in overly hyped up valuations. As these cryptoassets grow their networks, so too will their capital pools grow that will in return result in their price relationships maturing, strengthening and stabilizing over time. COSS may not always (and likely won’t) exhibit the foregoing attractive risk-adjusted return profile; as such, it is important to monitor this going forward especially as this cryptoasset matures and the speculation associated with it merges with reality.
Valuation Analysis #2 — (An Attempted) Income Approach
In order to estimate the economic value that can accrue to COSS token hodlers, I first examined the project’s fee structure to attempt to identify its value drivers.
According to the COSS team, there is a fee (ranging from 0.04%-0.2%) taken from both the buyer and seller in a transaction. This fee percentage range is determined in accordance with the volume of the trade and the buyer’s and/or seller’s participation in COSS’s referral program. Thus, a total fee of 0.08%-0.4% occurs per trade. Registered COSS token holders are entitled to collect 50% of this fee, implying a collection of 0.04%-0.2% of fees per trade. The fee percentage that a trader is charged per trade depends on the volume of a given trade and the participation in COSS’s referral program.
The fee percentage that a trader is charged per trade depends on the trading volume and the participation in COSS’s referral program.
For each person you refer, 10% of that person’s trading volume is added to your trading volume in order to get you closer to paying fewer fees. For instance, if you trade $10,000, you will pay a 0.18% fee. If the person you referred trades $5,000, 10% of the referred person’s trading volume is added to your trading volume (10% of $5,000 = $500), computing your total trading volume to now be $10,500, resulting in a 0.16% fee paid (relative to the original 0.18% fee paid before the referral adjustment). There is no limit to the number of referrals permitted.
As January 28, 2018, (Ethereum Block # 4986741), 98,283,923 COSS tokens (~94.5% of current 104.0M supply) were registered with the DAO. This means 98.3M COSS tokens were eligible to participate in the weekly fee revenue share.
Unfortunately, I did not feel a bottom-up analysis could be conducted confidently here given the lack of available data ascertaining what trades were associated with a particular fee bracket, as well as the lack of available information regarding any given investor’s referral status. Instead, I decided to framework a top-down analysis. With the help of Adrian Buerki, who runs Coin Profit Ninja, and also volunteers on COSS’s Trello board, I was able to obtain COSS’s DAO’s payout data on a weekly basis since its first fee-split allocation on October 8, 2017. Using this data, I was able to compute the implied pro-rata profit participation percentage per COSS token, as well as the actual profit received per COSS token. Using these two pieces of information, as well as a few conservative circulating supply assumptions (presented in detail in the accompanying model) I was then able to gross up and derive the estimated gross revenue generated by COSS’s exchange each week.
For valuation purposes, I computed and analyzed the historical trend of COSS’s exchange revenue as a percentage of its network value. A straight average of the historical data produced 0.12%, implying COSS’s gross exchange revenue, on average, amounted to approximately 0.12% of its network value over the observed period.
Next, I observed the measures of central tendency of the peer group’s (Kucoin, BNB, OmiseGo) market share (i.e., their network values percentages of the aggregate cryptoasset ecosystem’s network value). I then computed COSS’s market share and assumed it would scale to the median of the peer group’s market share by 2022 in a linear fashion per annum (this effectively assumes no further market share growth in the peers, which is probably conservative).
The rest of the analysis revolves around projecting out the entire cryptoasset ecosystem’s network value for each year through 2022, and simply just working the calculations back downward (while considering the projected supply schedules) in order to derive the projected COSS token value in each year, as well as the projected profit per COSS token in each year. At this point, the analysis is simply just estimating the future cash flows generated by hodling COSS tokens.
The key subjective assumptions in this analysis are 1) assuming the historical trend of COSS’s exchange revenue as a percentage of its network value remains constant in the projected period, and 2) the estimated entire cryptoasset ecosystem’s network value for each year through 2022.
Using a discount rate range of 30–50%, an estimated (present value) range of economic values for COSS is produced (around $5 to $11 at the time of this article). The high discount rates are deemed warranted given the future regulatory uncertainty, the small token lock-up period, the team’s (very) ambitious agenda, the accompanying implementation and execution risk of COSS’s product offering, as well as the uncertainty of the timing and magnitude of future adoption. At the time of this article, COSS was trading at $0.67 (or 0.0008 ETH), so the estimated present value range of economic values suggests COSS may be considerably undervalued.
It is important to reiterate that the foregoing projections do not necessarily carry weight in and of themselves; rather, they serve as a basis for one to view and organize directional possibilities that can be considered and achieved with known economical facts as of a particular point in time.
To experiment with assumptions and see what impacts they have on certain outputs, you can access the model here:
Note: You will have to save a separate copy of this model to be able to use it. Additionally, you may have to refresh the page a couple of times if the API data does not load properly. Lastly, calculation refresh settings are set to “on change and every minute”; however, I’ve found that they don’t always refresh properly (specifically, the market data in the “CoinMarketCap_API” tab). If you find the data is not refreshing properly (i.e., if the data in www.coinmarketcap.com and the data in the spreadsheet are not the same), I recommend deleting and retyping the ticker symbols in column “B” of the “CoinMarketCap_API” tab to get the formulas in columns “C” and “D” to reload properly.
As mentioned previously, I believe COSS proposes an interesting value proposition to investors with its fee-sharing platform. This is what enabled me to view COSS as both a potentially high-interest paying savings vehicle and a mechanism for building-up a mini-cryptoasset mutual fund over time. Anything else that accrues value in addition to the foregoing, to me, is just a plus.
The team strength and potential, appears to be net-positive, despite the potential concerns addressed above. The Sharpe Ratio analysis showed us that COSS has compensated investors handsomely for the risks they’ve taken, especially in relation to its peers. The (attempted) Income Approach analysis showed us that COSS may be considerably undervalued at current prices based on the future cash flows it can potentially generate for an investor. Another good source that one can use for estimating exchange fee earnings is the fee share calculator at https://www.cosscalc.com/.
It is also worth noting COSS is implementing a new platform engine as well as initiating fiat onramps sometime in the first or second quarter of 2018, two project updates that have the potential to boost its value considerably over the coming months.
Sincere thanks to Adrian Buerki, Larry Sukernik, Pete Humiston and Harry Sudock for reviewing this analysis and providing constructive feedback before it was published. Without your help, I wouldn’t have had as much confidence in publishing this piece as I do now.
- Date of publication:
- Sun, 02/11/2018 - 08:24
Click on the link - it will be copied to clipboard