AMA Highlights with Mike Miglio

Wolf Crypto hosted AMA with CEO of Bridge Mutual Mike Miglio.

Im pleased to report that the event was a huge success, and Mike got to answer many awesome questions.

Project tease:
— Bridge Mutual’s stablecoin and centralized exchange insurance is an industry-first!
— Bridge Mutual is a Polkadot project.
— Bridge Mutual offers Cross-chain insurance for assets and platforms on any network.
— Bridge Mutual’s voting system allows the community to determine the exact amount that a claimant should be rewarded!

➡️ Website
➡️ Telegram
➡️ Twitter
➡️ Medium
➡️ Pitch Deck

Q1: How does a lawyer firstly get involved in the crypto space and secondly involved…as CEO no less, of a crypto insurance project?

A1: Well, before I was a licensed lawyer I was a crypto investor. I started a crypto law firm right away, servicing only crypto projects that needed help navigating U.S. crypto regulations. As a firm we ended up doing very well, servicing clients like QTUM, Akropolis,, NOIA and many others.

As for how I got involved in “insurance” on blockchain, the founders saw a clear need in the space for a better insurance solution and we just began theory crafting one into existence. We quickly realized the idea was gold and that, between us, we had all the necessary components to turn it into a solid project.

As it turns out, insurance on the blockchain is significantly different from traditional insurance models — you don’t need an insurance background to understand how our model works (although we do have insurance experts on the team.)

Q2: Who else is involved in Bridge Mutual and what is their experience in the crypto or insurance spaces?

A2: We have 2 international crypto attorneys, a director at a famous U.S. crypto exchange, an accomplished marketing guru with insane connections, an experienced marketing coordinator, a content writer that also works for a crypto news site, 5 experienced and talented devs (including our CTO that is an OG in the space), 4 quantitative analysts/mathematicians, a product manager, 2 insurance experts, and 2 graphics and web designers.

We also have a slew of advisors and 3rd party service providers backing us for the long-term, such as Tyler Ward (co-founder of BarnBridge), and Michal Terpin (long-time OG that runs a PR company that does work for a big chunk of the top100 projects.) Our advisors are people at the top of the crypto food chain.

Q3: Before we get into the general topic of insurance and crypto insurance, let’s hear your elevator pitch on what Bridge Mutual is and what problem you’re trying to solve in the crypto space?

A3: Sure, Bridge Mutual is a decentralized, dao-managed, permission-less, p2p/p2b discretionary insurance platform that allows users to provide or purchase coverage for smart contracts, centralized exchanges, stablecoins, and other centralized crypto service providers. More products will come late this year. We are aiming to create a balanced, scalable and efficient way for users to quickly provide or purchase discretionary insurance policies without any centralized layers.

Q4: What do you see as the main commonalities between the legacy world of insurance and the crypto world…and what are the main points of difference for you? I’m especially interested in the structural component of both worlds, as the “mutual” aspect of your product is something that I believe is quite different to most traditional insurance structures?

A4: As you guessed, traditional insurance and Bridge Mutual are two very different animals entirely. The commonalities are few and far between, aside from the fact that they both allow people a chance to mitigate or offset their risk.

The main points of difference are that with insurance companies, a user is entering into an agreement with a centralized insurance company who’s incentives are nearly always adverse to the policy holder. Insurance companies have an absolute conflict of interest in approving a user’s claim. Traditional insurance is so broken that society has rely on extreme governmental regulation to force insurance companies to operate more fairly. The system is very opaque for the policy holder in a traditional claims process, and claimants often have to threaten to sue in order to receive payouts they deserve.

Bridge Mutual uses a mutual model wherein its users collectively share risk amongst themselves by buying and selling coverage and adjudicating their own claims internally as a collective. The token helps to align incentives between the claimant and the rest of the community, as denying a valid claim would hurt the mutual’s reputation and affect the price of the token, which all users are holding. There is also an advanced reputation system, rewards, and punishments in place that heavily incentivize users to act in an honest and fair way even if paying out a claim would mean hurting their own pockets temporarily.

Q5: I’d love to hear your general take on the DeFi space and how it’s maturing…or not…as it ages, and I’m especially interested in your thoughts on it from a regulatory perspective with your crypto lawyer background…

A5: I agree, the DeFi space is a bit of a cluster f*ck right now. Everyone is FOMOing face-first into projects run by anonymous teams they know nothing about on the promise of a potential 100x because they have nice graphics and a cool idea. The risks and rewards are great, it’s definitely 2017 again. With the advent of insurance, I think DeFi investor culture will change to be more cautious and educated. For example, the Bridge Mutual platform incorporates a Proof of Loss system, meaning that it is the claimant’s responsibility to carefully document their asset holdings so that they can upload this information/evidence to the network in the event a platform gets hacked or rug-pulled and they need to make a claim. All uploaded evidence can be seen by the rest of the community that is voting on that claim.

I guess I should disclaim that even though I’m a lawyer, my opinions are my own and are not meant to be legal opinions or advice. From a regulatory perspective, nothing that is decentralized fits neatly within the box of modern-day law. In general, it is difficult to regulate something or someone when you can’t physically stop it or digitally stop its cash flow, and you don’t know who is controlling it. In the real world, we have systems for tracking people down or crippling them financially by seizing their assets and freezing their accounts. In the crypto world, that generally isn’t possible. For example, if a DAO breaks a law in a specific jurisdiction, there is no feasible way to bring that DAO to its knees and force it to comply with your legal demands. The DAO could be run by hundreds or thousands of people across a hundred different countries, and ownership is transferred instantly via the token, so it’s a very slippery beast.

In my opinion, decentralized systems present a lot of problems for regulators, but a lot of solutions for humanity. I’m not sure they can or should be stopped, the world governments should just do their best to adapt and embrace the changes.

Q6: One thing I noticed in your pitch deck was that you only have a direct comparison to Nexus Mutual, and it’s phrased as the “only serious competitor”. I’d love to hear why you think this is the case, and why projects such as why other products such as Cover, Nsure, Union Finance or even PolkaCover didn’t make the cut there?

A6: Okay, so the pitch deck was written at a time when Nexus was the only functional platform. Everyone else was still an idea. In general, the pitch deck is very outdated and shouldn’t be referred to for almost anything, but we’re going to release more updated versions we get closer to launch. We stopped updating our pitch deck due to the increase in competition in the insurance space, and after experiencing some idea theft from competitor projects and VCs. Most of our business model is confidential, so we’re holding our cards close to our chest until a couple weeks before our product launch. In general though, there are a few major differences between us and ALL of the competitors that you listed above. I’ll list some here:
1. We provide coverage for stablecoins and centralized exchanges, not just smart contracts.
2. We have no minting, no burning, and no equations or bonding curves that manipulate our token price. Because we don’t use a price equation, our system is much more complex, the price equations are a really easy to way to keep things balanced but they come with a lot of negative side effects and limit what you can do as a platform.
3. We have innovative new use-cases for NFTs on our platform that have never been done before.
4. We have no centralized layers that can influence or completely control the outcomes of claims. Check other models, you will see “advisory boards” that are supposedly decentralized because the community can vote who sits on the board, but in reality the ones choosing who sit on the board are the people with all the tokens (the founders and VCs).
5. We are partnering with top-tier auditing firms and paying for 3rd party projects (Aave, Compound, etc.) to be audited.
6. We have an extremely intricate reputation system.

These are the differences I can think of off the top of my head. But I don’t update myself on all the other insurance platforms every day, so some of these differences may no longer be accurate.
I’d also like to point out that PolkaCover, specifically, isn’t really a competitor to us. They have a completely different suite of products planned. And also, the insurance industry in general is not as competitive as other industries. Insurance companies are mutually beneficial to each other because they can insure each other. Every other insurance platform will be listed on Bridge Mutual, I guarantee it. My condolences go out to Nexus and Cover, no project or founder deserves to be targeted. In my view of this industry, all of our platforms will co-exist peacefully and improve the space together. We’re all still very small in comparison to the traditional insurance world, and we should all be doing our best to secure our roots here.

Q7: Ignoring the others for a second, let’s do a 1:1 on Bridge Mutual vs Nexus Mutual. As we briefly mentioned above, the “Mutual” style offering is something you both have in common structurally. Tell me why you’ve chosen to go down this path and what advantages or disadvantages it offers up as opposed to doing a shareholder style structure?

A7: Bridge and Nexus are significantly different, in my opinion. They both use a mutual model, which means that users on our platform cover each other’s risks and vote on each other’s claims. Most of the other insurance platforms have a similar model, actually, they just don’t use the word mutual.

Aside from the differences I just listed above, we’re also different specifically from Nexus in these ways:

1. We don’t collect or require KYC, our system is anonymous;
2. We are building on Polkadot instead of Ethereum to avoid high gas fees;
3. We cover more products;
4. Nexus has to manually approve and add assets to their system, our system is permission-less in such a way that allows anyone to add an asset to our platform and start insuring it immediately.
5. We do not have control or access over user’s funds, and user’s coverage funds are invested automatically as per our algorithm to provide additional yields to our users.

Q8: One thing Nexus Mutual does, and does “quite” well, is Smart Contract insurance. However you’ve taken this a little further with coverage for stablecoins, wallets and centralised exchanges. Before we get too far into this AMA, can you expand upon those and what they actually involve, perhaps with some more concrete use cases or scenarios?

A8: Yeah sure, we don’t insure personal wallets because it’s exceedingly difficult to prove that a personal wallet hack was not an inside job. But both stablecoin insurance and centralized exchange insurance are pretty straightforward.
Stablecoin insurance protects policy holders from price crashes. Price crashes can happen due to new regulations, actions made by centralized entities such as the Tether Foundation or Coinbase, or exploits (DAI’s Black Thursday event). If the price of a stablecoin falls beneath $1.00 for a set period of time, all eligible policy holders will be able to make a claim on our platform and get paid out instantly. It’s really that simple.
For centralized exchange insurance, it’s a bit more complicated. The claims go through our multi-phase voting system and we use the wisdom of the crowd to determine whether or not a “coverable event” took place (this is the same process for smart contracts). Coverable events for exchanges include the exchange being hacked (KuCoin) the exchange mysteriously shutting down without warning, the exchange losing people’s funds (like if the only person who had the private keys passes away), and when the exchange flat out steals users funds and stops operations (like the FCoin exchange). Typically when these things happen the news makes every major headline, so it should be fairly easy for our community to determine whether a claim is valid or not based on that news.

Q9: Firstly on the wallet side of things…is there any intent to cover something like personal wallet exploits/hacks etc…think MetaMask or the like? Secondly, you have CEX coverage there, but no DEX?

A9: For personal wallets it’s really hard, because the incentive for a user to commit insurance fraud (transfering money out of their own wallet and making it look like they were hacked) is super high. Personal theft requires a high degree of investigation and analysis, it’s difficult to accomplish in a decentralized system, but it’s something that a lot of people ask for, so we’re already actively thinking of ways that we can cover this demand. We have some ideas, but they’re not perfect yet.
As for DEX coverage, DEXes are all run off of smart contracts, so DEX falls under smart contract insurance. This is a very frequently asked question, so we should probably do a better job of making this more clear to the average user.

Q10: DEX’s fall under the smart contract banner. I assume that covers users for an overall platform exploit and their own individual holdings on said DEX’s? If so, can you explain how that works and if not, what am I missing?

A10: That’s correct. The policy applies broadly to the entire platform, regardless of which pool was hacked or if multiple pools were hacked. If you are covered for a DEX, you’re covered for anything that happens to that DEX up to your policy maximum.

Q11: How about CEX’s, is this the type of insurance a CEX would take out on themselves, or is it something an individual user can take out on their own holdings on a CEX? I have a couple of schools of thought on that one, firstly an entity like Binance has always maintained the ability to keep funds SAFU, via their supposed SAFU fund, and when push came to shove on that, they made good with their users…and on the other hand you have KuCoin, who said they were insured and obviously weren’t…and pushed the onus of the hack back on their listed projects to make good with token holders instead of coming up with the funds themselves…

A11: Users can insure their own funds on a CEX. A CEX can also self-insure on our platform. It’s the same thing. All projects can (should) self-insure on our platform, and it goes through the same voting and claims system as anyone else’s claim. However, just as a reminder, this is a proof of loss system. A lot of CEXes do have traditional insurance, so if the traditional insurance provider pays the CEX, their claim would be denied, or if the CEX reimburses the users then individual users claims will be denied.

In your scenario above with Binance and KuCoin, if the CEX paid users back, then claims on our platform would most likely be denied. If the CEX (KuCoin) didn’t pay the users back, the claims would most likely be approved. While this does give CEXes an indirect incentive not to use their own insurance to pay its users, it also could damage their reputation but increases Bridge’s reputation for paying out, so we’re fine with this.
Users should be careful when choosing who they will provide coverage for. Binance is obviously a super safe bet, so we expect a lot of people wanting to provide coverage for Binance, but not a lot of people feeling the need to purchase coverage on Binance. It will still be profitable to provide Binance coverage on our system, but things that people are more reluctant to cover (KuCoin) will naturally have higher APYs.

Q12: With both the above DEX and CEX scenarios, how do you go about verifying a user’s holdings and that they’re in line with the policy taken out on said holdings? As we all know, the value of crypto currency holdings is a day by day proposition…

A12: Policy holders on CEXes should be extra particular when documenting their CEX funds. It doesn’t take much to do a time-stamped screenshot or screen capture a video of your portfolio at the end of a trading day. Either way, it is our users that will determine whether they believe the claimant or not, not the Bridge team. We will come up with some general best-practice guidelines for the community to adhere to so that they can maximize the odds of getting approved on their potential future claims, but that’s really the most that we can do.
For DEXes, it’s a little bit easier to prove loss because every hack or exploit is well documented on-chain for all to see. But especially on DEXes and other DeFi products, people need to start documenting their holdings religiously because DEXes are more likely to be hacked.
As an example, if you had a $10k policy on Uniswap to cover the $10k you put into a liquidity pool, you should screenshot the transaction and timestamp it with your address. It would be even better if the funds came from the same ETH address that purchased the policy. If that liquidity pool was ever compromised, it would be well established on social media and other outlets, we’d also see the event on-chain. If you have well documented evidence, and your ETH address didn’t show you take the liquidity out of the pool, the users on our platform are very likely to accept your policy claim and reward you.

Q13: Stablecoins now hold an obscene amount of value in the crypto space. It would probably be fair to say they’ve been the winning utility use case for crypto over the past few years. As we mentioned above, you’re now insuring stable coins. Can you explain to me how this works? If it turns out USDT actually is one big scam, I’ll be able to insure it and get the full value of my USDT back off you when the scam is revealed?

A13: That’s correct. I can’t really go into too much detail into how it works, but you have the right idea. If USDT was one big scam that got revealed, the price would crash. If the price crashes, you are eligible. If you are eligible, you will instantly get the full amount of the value you lost up to your policy maximum in a different stablecoin.
The one point of failure is if all stablecoins crash simultaneously. If that happens, we’ll all be in a pickle.

Q14: Another interesting competitor in the space is ETHERISC, who have a couple of crypto related insurance products, but also some more left field ones, like Hurricane insurance, Flight Delay insurance and Crop insurance. You’re not going to get speccy and start offering insurance products like that via Bridge are you?

A14: Flight delay, train cancellation and things like that are pretty easy to do, but I don’t think we’re going to venture into that territory. One of our devs and core team members, Kiril Ivanov, actually has his own insurance platform that does flight/train cancellation and delays called HighBridge (name unrelated), so we have internal knowledge on exactly how to accomplish this and other similar products.
We do have long-term plans for more traditional insurance products, but we will likely cover things that are much more broad and meaningful than a late flight.

Q15: Obviously one of the main points of difference between Bridge Mutual and Nexus Mutual is the lack of KYC required on Bridge as opposed to a KYC process on Nexus (which by the way, didn’t seem to stop them getting exploited recently…) However other protocols, like Cover and Nsure, are KYC free also and this seems to now be more the norm rather than the exception. How much of a competitive advantage do you see this being as we move into a DeFi and insurance landscape that’s becoming more and more decentralised?

A15: When we first started developing Bridge, this was a huge competitive advantage. Now it isn’t. Time’s change and the space evolves rapidly, but I’d say we are 3 steps ahead of the competition right now in terms of innovation. We didn’t just stop at “no KYC”, and we’re going to maintain our edge by continuing to innovate even when we are the leaders in the space.

Q16: While I’m on the subject of Nexus Mutual and their recent exploit…I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, and an opinion on if the ones doing the insuring also need to be insured?

A16: Well, I don’t personally know Hugh (the Nexus Mutual founder) but I know people that know him, and I’ve heard nothing but amazing things about him. Getting hacked is my greatest fear. I’ve gone through great lengths to make sure that our funds will never be compromised. That being said, the attack on Hugh was highly sophisticated, so one can only hope that what they are doing is enough to prevent an attack.
It is absolutely the case that insurance platforms should insure each other. As I said, Nexus will be on our platform without a doubt; all of the insurance platforms will be.

Q17: Pricing when it comes to insurance is also one of the most important aspects of it, especially when it comes to crypto insurance, as there’s a few different types of models when it comes to pricing not only premiums but the underlying token itself. So let’s do the token first. How is the token priced and how does this play into pricing of premiums? I assume since it’s dynamic you’ll end up having some premiums that are cheaper on your platform than others, but also some that may be more expensive? Is equilibrium there simply found by the old supply and demand theory?

A17: We’ve finally come across a question that I’m not allowed to fully answer at this stage in our launch. Many other platforms require users to purchase policies with their token. Using the token in this way creates significant limitations in other parts of the platform, and requires you to use a bonding curve to control the price of the token. Users on Bridge will be paying for premiums in stablecoins. That is all I can say for now, as I’m afraid of getting into too much detail. But yes, our token price will be dictated by supply and demand.

Q18: How about the dynamic of the underlying collateral that supports the system. Obviously you’re decentralised so I assume like most decentralised platforms, this collateral is decentralised. What form does it take though? Do users supply collateral in the form of BMI tokens, stable coins, other crypto assets or all of the above?

A18: The collateral supporting the system is held in a few different assets, but I can’t say more than that without giving away too much information. In later versions of our platforms, the diversification of collateral will grow.

Q19: Past the initial release, what will be the process for adding new assets onto the platform? Is this where governance will play its part?

A19: Right, so as I discussed earlier, any on-chain asset will always be able to be added to our platform by the users without our permission. For centralized things like exchanges and custodians, they have to be manually added. Before the DAO is up, the team will be adding these things manually. After the DAO is up, the DAO will take over this responsibility.

Q20: I see from your pitch deck you have two collateral pools, low risk and high risk. Can you give me some detail as to how and why they’re classified as such and where that risk component comes in?

A20: The model on the pitch deck is completely out-dated. We went through 3 iterations of our model, each substantially more intricate than the last. The one on our pitch deck is the prototype of the first iteration, so it’s very basic. We’ve done away with high risk vs low risk pools, our system will have potentially hundreds and even thousands of pools, but that is all I can say for now.

Q21: Talk to me about how the collateral on the platform gets invested into other DeFi protocols, what that means and how accessible this collateral is when it needs to be used for a claim?

A21: Sure, coverage funds in our system will be dropped into our yield generation pool. The funds in this pool will get automatically reinvested into other platforms (Aave, Curve, Barnbridge, etc), and will rebalance the allocation of these funds in intervals to maximize yield generation. If a valid claim is made, the amount of funds necessary to cover the claim are withdrawn from one or more platforms to pay the user.

Q22: So let’s go through the claims process on the platform and how that actually functions. Can you give me a flow chart of the process in general and any particulars of caveats that might come along the way…and of course, how this might differ to other crypto insurance platforms? What actually happens, process wise, once a claim is made…How is it decided and how is it paid out?

A22: The claims process is also partially confidential at the moment. We have only explained the process to strategic investors. But it’s a multi-phase blind voting system that is sprinkled with rewards and punishments to incentivize honest voting. I know the idea of “punishments” may sound unappealing, but they’re necessary to deter bad actors. Unlike other platforms out there, there is no centralized layer that can control the outcome of votes. If you look at Nexus, it has an “advisory board” that can decide to punish specific users, burn tokens, veto outcomes, etc.

Q23: I see staking is a major component of the claims process. How about you explain to me the staking dynamics on the platform?

A23: So in our platform, providing coverage funds in stablecoins earns you yields. Staking BMI also earns you separate yields and allows you to partake in certain activities on the platform. In order to provide coverage funds, you have to choose which assets you want to provide coverage for. Projects can incentivize users to provide coverage for their pools by easily integrating our shield mining code into their system, it will be really simple for them.

Once your funds are staked and providing coverage to an asset (for example, Sushiswap) then you start earning and profit sharing in the system. If Sushiswap were ever hacked and a claim was successfully made against it, then some of your staked collateral would be given to the claimant to pay for the claim.

Q24: You’ve made a point of stating in your pitch deck that Bridge will hire third party auditors to audit popular projects, along with your own in house auditing solution. Define to me what “popular” projects are and how these audits will take place…and where the money for them will come from?

A24: That’s right. The second or third version of our product will use some of the funds generated to pay auditors whole-sale fees to audit “popular” projects. The DAO will decide which projects get audited, and there will be a specific pool of funds for paying our auditing partners. It’s a pretty easy setup. The team will forge the auditing partnerships at the start, and it will be the DAOs responsibility to continue those relationships and to add more auditing companies as time goes on.

Q25: I have a couple of questions on the tech side of things… In my opinion, the whole Polkadot aspect of things is a little bit of a meme at the moment, as we both know, you can’t actually build on it just yet, so all these Polkadot projects that have been coming out lately are actually building on ETH first and waiting for Polkadot projects to release some sort of framework to allow projects to build within their ecosystem. So with that in mind, what’s your path to Polkadot and what comes in between it…will we see an ETH based MVP first?

A25: Spot on. Polkadot isn’t really a thing yet, and it’s all very speculative as to whether it will function as promised. Our entire platform is coded in Solidity and ready to be launched on the ETH network. We can use parachains like Moonbeam or Edgeware to migrate over to Polkadot, as those parachains are ETH compatible. Assuming shit hits the fan and none of that works out, we’ll continue to operate as planned on ETH until there is a better alternative. It’s very difficult to break away from something that isn’t at least compatible with ETH, however, as nearly all of the TVL is on ETH and novice users understand how ETH works.

Q26: I note that you’ve been a little cagey on some of the tech details and mechanics on how things will work on the Bridge platform…is there a reason for this?

A26: Competition. We’ve already experienced some idea theft early on. We’ve vastly improved our design and token model since those days, so the ideas that were shared around without our permission are old news and don’t affect us anymore. We are doing everything we can to make sure that Bridge is the first to market with its technology and design. Our team believes that we’re inventing the next evolution of insurance for a decentralized world.

Q27: What’s the revenue model for Bridge Mutual past selling BMI tokens?

A27: Bridge has a pretty complex revenue model, but in essence the revenue is made by reinvesting coverage into a slew of other yield generating platforms (Aave, Curve, Balancer, etc.) and collecting the yields. These yields are used to support the BMI token price, to reward users, and for one other very important and novel thing (which again, I can’t disclose 😓).

BMI tokens have multiple uses, and will end up adopting more uses as later versions of the model are introduced. The token can be used to control the DAO with votes, and it can be staked. Staking BMI grants you numerous abilities on the platform that create opportunities for users to make money on the system, and also earns you passive yields.

Q28: Summarize your token sale and path to launch for me please.

A28: We had 3 rounds of private sale and we’re finishing off with an IDO on Polkastarter just before we list on January 30th. Our private sale received over $9m in interest within 48 hours, and we stopped counting after that. Total interest in the project far exceeds $9m, we’ve had a lot of requests from large funds since our private sale.

The rounds:
Angels [$50,000 raise] — $0.0625–0% TGE
Seed [$210,000 raise] — $0.09375–25% TGE
Private [$1,350,000 raise] — $0.125–25% TGE
Polkastarter — TBA

Q29: Whats the approx marketcap on day one, based off the above?

A29: Long story short, we’re still tuning it. Rest assured, it will definitely be under $2m. And likely under $1.5m. And the effective market cap you see liquid on the DEX should be even lower (not all tokens unlocked at launch will be being traded, we’ll have some for marketing, bug finding, etc.)

Q30: Ok I have a couple of DD questions before we do a short round of community questions. Does Bridge Mutual have a Github?

A30: It does, but the github is private until closer to launch

Q31: Where are you guys based?

A31: The management team is mostly American, but the rest of the team and our advisors are all over the globe.

Q32: Where is Bridge Mutual incorporated?

A32: Wyoming, USA right now. But we’re considering moving to Puerto Rico.

Q33: Has the BMI token already been minted? If so, what’s the address?

A33: It hasn’t, so PLEASE DO NOT GET SCAMMED. We have many scammers gunning after our community, and have had 3 or 4 fake versions of BMI tokens already on Uniswap. Scammers are copying our chats, announcement channels, youtube, twitter, etc. Please help us find and report the scammers :).

Q34: Have your smart contracts been audited and can we see the results?

A34: They haven’t been audited yet, but we’ve already booked Zokyo and Consensys for our mainnet audits. Most auditing companies are backlogged for 3+ months, it’s very difficult to get an audit right now and it’s the largest cause for delay.

community questions

Mike, how much money is raised in total?
In total we raised $1.6m

Is there any partnerships in the line to be revealed?
Yeah there is quite a few. At least 5 that I can think of off the top of my head, but they will get rolled out over time

How long does this make your runway?
We budgeted for a year. Honestly I think other projects are raising way too much or spending without care. Then again, we saved heavily on legal, development, and marketing costs because our core team were experts in all these areas and we didn’t have to outsource.

Are there plans for Liquidity pool reward programs when the token is released? These usually help deepen trading liquidity on dexes
liquidity provision will be incentivized :), and we have our liquidity mining program coming soon which is going to incorporate NFTs in a really cool way that’s never been done before (as far as I can tell).

How will NFT work on an insurance platform?
We have 2 different types of NFTs right now. Both of them have utility, it’s not just a piece of art or anything simple like that. But I can’t disclose more info on those yet. One of the NFTs will be an incentive for providing liquidity to the system and will have some cool utilities attached to it. The other one is a core part of our token model and will solve a significant problem that exists in all other insurance platforms right now.

When will you first generate revenue?
Technically during the liquidity mining event, which will happen a couple of weeks before our official launch. The funds given to use will be reinvested in safe platforms to generate yields, and the funds will be pushed into our system after it launches.

Are you likely to collaborate with other insurance projects in the space and how do you envisage this happening?
We’re open to it. Nobody has approached us yet, but it’s definitely something we could do.

Were other ecosystems considered instead of polkadot for bridge, and if so why weren’t they chosen?
Yes. We decided on Polkadot some time ago. We are waiting to see what happens with Polkadot and their parachain auctions, but we’re still pretty convinced that Polakdot is the best choice for us. A pros and cons list of all the networks would take too long to answer right now.