Hi, I think that you should add 2fA at personal page 

wao, ico INCHAIN ​​already begun. I was delighted to see his web ico, very profesianal. congratulations on the opening of this ICO.

I have received the mail for the Ico from http://ico.inchain.io

The ICO "wallet" page is very nice, looking great

ICO have started! Good luck to developers team! Wish you thousands of Bitcoins 

I think the market really needs some insurance products.
Yes, I would purchase the insurance policy but under the certain conditions. Some time before I thought 3% is not expensive but now I think I would pay 2% max, 1% would be even better. I would also like to have an insurance against more events than just hacks. Exchange/wallet can lose some part of its assets not because of the hacks only. For example, earthquakes, fires, another catastrophes, hostile authorities actions, seizures, exchanges/wallets workers criminal activities, etc. I would absolutely purchase an insurance against my personal exchange account freeze or block. There may be scenarios when the exchanges clients funds will be closed/frozen selectively by the administration without any reason. This way the exchange can continue its operation for a long time taking away the users funds. And it won't be your insurance event in the current business model.

Regarding Coinbase, I am not its representative. I can only guess. As they say,

ICO of Inchain starts tomorrow. ICOrating team (icorating.com) is releasing a full review (business model, technical background, team, marketing) of this platform with the evaluation of its investment attractiveness and the review of its strengths and weaknesses.

 Links:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KfCUdV6p1kZBj6h4n-BHs-YOaNqC89Bq8h_oRJ7EPqs/edit?usp=sharing

What about support team, managers, CEO's, secretaries, PR, etc? Office rental?
So the above expenses should be excluded from the project income to get the profits numbers.

I understand your point but insurance fund and investment fund may not have ETH in their portfolio (in theory) but your system is still built on top of Ethereum and has the above risks. So the risk of ETH price volatility and the risk of the platform functioning problems are absolutely different risks.
Moreover, the risks of ETH volatility are absolutely the same for all the funds with the same structure so they may be omitted in the comparison.

You can check my previous posts. I took the number 10% from your financial plan.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1623519.msg16631252#msg16631252

Where will you take the funds to support the operational expenses of InChain (your team) after the project launch?
Will you use the ICO funds? Or InChain DAO will decide? What will be the approximate size of that expenses for the first year?

What same risks? Can you enumerate them, please?

Very simple. Anticipated income according to my analysis is $208 000.
1. ICO result - $1.75M. ROI for ICO investor = 208/1750 = 11.8%
2. ICO result - $3M. ROI for ICO investor = 208/3000 = 6.9%

Not correct. The risks of compromised exchanges exist for the insurance platform too. Or you won't use any exchanges to purchase the crypto assets?
Or you mean the fund managers will store their funds at the exchanges? No, they won't. They will use the exchanges to buy and sell assets only, not to store them.
You also don't understand the Ethereum network risk. I mean your system is built on top of Ethereum and uses Ethereum smart contracts. If there are Ethereum network problems your system will have problems too. We all know about the hard forks.
http://forklog.net/ambisafe-urges-ethereum-to-revise-hardfork-conditions/
And yes, legal risks always exist for all legal structures.

My main point is that ICO investors take the risks of the insurance fund performance but don't get all the fund profits - they get the profits part only. And in numbers it looks not very attractive now.

I don't agree. At the non-transparent traditional markets it may be. But if at a certain moment the insurance fund shows some loss and the reserve fund can't cover it (everything can be seen in the blockchain) the bonds price will drop immediately.

Will be less than 10% if the ICO will have more than $1.75M.

1. Exchanges list. The fact that the exchanges list is not final is quite understandable and acceptable. What is not acceptable is to include the exchanges/wallets that CAN'T be insured by InChain technically according to the insurance strategy announced by InChain itself. It's a sign of disparaging and unprofessional approach to the business.
For example, the aforementioned Bitsquare. InChain claims it will insure centralized web wallets/exchanges only.
Bitsquare is a dectntralized exchange and will never store users private keys. It can't be hacked in a way that allows InChain insure it.
Coinbase is questionable too. Not for technical reasons but because their wallets are insured already and there will be no  many clients willing to insure them twice.
Coinomi - private keys are stored on users devices only. Questionable. Not a web wallet.
Mycelium - not a web wallet. Questionable.
Electrum - not a web wallet. Private keys never leave clients device. Questionable.

Almost a half of the table is wallets/exhcanges that probably won't be insured by InChain due to its own policy.

I have an example for you. Let's assume I'm trying to open a vegetarian shop and need some money to start this business. You are my potential investor. I have prepared a presentation for you. One of my presentation part is a list of the basic products I'm going to sell. It looks like this:

- beef
- chicken
- lamb
- potatoes
- rice
- apples
- peaches

You are asking me: 'What does it mean, isn't it a vegetaian shop?'
I answer: 'Oh, it's just an example'
- Example of what?
- ...

Would you give your hard earned money to the applicant who doesn't even care to compose a realistic presentation?
I understand word 'example' as an event that can really happen in future and has a probability of more than 0. Unfortunately, the table from your financial model doesn't fit my definition because several exchanges/wallets will not be even considered for insurance.

2. Financial model
Not only the list of exchanges but the whole financial model will be different in the real product.
The blog post doesn't tell us anything about the start phase of the project and initial funding. But some forum posts give us more information.
In Russian thread Sergey mentions that $0.9-1.05M from $1.75M will go to the Insurance Fund.
This fact changes the financial model significantly. One million dollars is just omitted in your financial model example. At the start of the project ICO participants will take insurance risks too, there will be no bond holders from the start.
How do you think, one million dollars is worth mentioning in the financial model?

3. Your question.

I never said it is unrealistic. It is my estimation of the potential market. So I agree it is realistic. But with the existing financial model the ROI for ICO participants will be about 10% and is fully dependent on the insurance fund performance. The insurance fund will be composed of different crypto assets. So I don't understand an ICO investor motivation. He can just invest his funds into one of Iconomi funds or create his own portfolio with the same assets as your insurance fund. Adding the risk of losing all the profits (or even more if several hacks will happen during the first year, please remember that ICO investors will take the risks at the start of the project) is not worth of gaining additional 3% ROI. Moreover, there can be no dividends at all if the DAO votes accordingly.
As I mentioned before just holding your funds in BTC is a more safe and profitable strategy.

Well, we have never said that the list of the exchanges is the one we will be working with. We conducted a survey among those who are interested in the project and created a model based on their expectations.
Obviously, the platform is not not even in the development stage yet. All we can publish for now is our projections based on inputs and assumptions.
Regarding the blog post you refer to, it looks quite reasonable. However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.
Moreover, we have never claimed that we are going to stay away from the Chinese market.

Actually, I expected for some excuses for not warning the community that you financial model is just an example and the real model will be different. You wrote that your exchanges list is an example in 30 days after the post was published. No warnings in the blog text.
Would you show this financial model to a venture investor? I doubt. Even if you did you wouldn't get the money.
So why do you show it to the community? Because you think they won't read it or will just trust you without any verifications.

If you say I'm wrong please tell me where I'm wrong.
All the numbers from your financial model are not real and will be different in the real product.
Number of exchanges - not real.
Each exchange share - not real.
Insurance premium - not real.
Coupon rate - not real.
Total amount insured - not real.
Thank you for mentioning about your survey and saying that conditions are 'editable'.

So if all the above numbers are just an example why do finalize your post with words 'As you can see Inchain earns in each case'? The conclusion is based on the example numbers that are far from reality. So you should write 'As you can see from our example InChain can be profitable but only with the numbers we gave you. They will be different in reality'. That would be fare at least.

Are you sure there will be bonds in your real financial model?
Are you ready to give me 100 BTC if there will be no bonds in your real financial model?

- How will Ethereum smart contracts handle Bitcoin bonds and insuranse policies? Ethereum smart contracts can directly control ETH or Ethereum-based tokens only.

Quote from the article you posted earlier https://medium.com/@piersbxd/should-a-dao-have-a-legal-entity-715a9cf31301#.v4wxpbir1


Is there a reason that all of your candidates are outside US/EU?

As far as I can tell, of the three only Switzerland allows anonymous partners and requires that at least one director lives in Switzerland.

For Switzerland and UK avoiding double taxation on dividends could be an issue for token holders.

Compliance in Hong Kong does seem pretty reasonable but as far as I can tell still requires all token holders to be registered with the company.