Blockhub

Adaptive digital platform for next-generation applications

About Blockhub

Hyperbridge Technology aims to develop Dataforce, a structured private data storage solution that will allow users to monetize their data. Dataforce will consist of a library of Ethereum smart contracts and will create a data enrichment standard which will structure and categorize user data.
Dataforce will power Blockhub, a digital distribution platform and marketplace that gives users access to decentralized applications. Blockhub will be able to create a “streamlined and congruent user profile”, which allows data to be exchanged between services and applications, allowing for a seamless way to achieve a tailored user experience with each application. Blockhub will allow for encrypted and decentralized storage and can be extended by third-party developers.

GOV tokens are used to pay for network operation fees as well as premium features and application purchases. Additionally, GOV token holders are given voting rights, subject to the Republic, an entity that serves to “work toward harmony and the mutual interest of participants in the ecosystem”.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.8
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

How easy is it to read and understand the documentation, comprehend the project's goals and trajectory.

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

What stages are to be achieved, how are they to be carried out and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the token model and how well does it fit into the company's overall business model.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Three whitepapers are included on the Hyperbridge website which discuss various aspects of the ecosystem: Dataforce, Blockhub, and Republic. Additionally, there is an executive summary that also provides further information of business-related details of Blockhub, as well as the development roadmap and token details. An assessment of the platform based on the Howey Test is also provided. There is a lack of discussion on blockchain-focused competitors. Most of the content focuses on discussing how the platform works on a logistical level. Technology plan presentation is discussed, but detail is lacking. Legal considerations are discussed fairly briefly (approximately half a page) towards the end of the executive summary. The company GitHub page is not referenced in the whitepapers/website/executive summary, but can be found via manual search.

Readability: The documents are fairly easy to read. There is no obfuscation of the whitepapers with the overuse of buzzwords and technical jargon.

 Transparency: The documents do not adequately describe the technology in sufficient detail. There is minimal discussion regarding the technical issues that the organization face or will face as the platform develops. The current stage of development is not discussed with great detail: it is stated that a proof-of-concept and prototype has been built (according to the development roadmap), but thorough discussion regarding these developments are not included in the documents or the website. However, the company GitHub page is moderately active and contains 6 public repositories (Blockhub SDK, API and smart contracts for the marketplace/data exchange/governance protocols, the Blockhub web client, and ecosystem improvement proposals). Legal considerations are minimal.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The majority of the business plan (for Blockhub) is discussed in the executive summary as opposed to the whitepaper. Developers will pay a publishing fee as well as a percentage (unspecified) of the sales revenue which is transferred back into the Blockhub ecosystem. Users will use GOV tokens to purchase apps, premium features, and for voting purposes. Clients are also able to purchase data collected from users.

Growth strategies are also adequately discussed. The executive summary outlines the customer acquisition tactics that the organization will use which includes:

– Airdrops & Bounty Campaigns

– Beta testing

– Analytics

– Leverage existent user groups

– Early adoption program

– Incentivization Programs

– Conversion of pre-ICO social media participant groups

– Targets (digital distribution to a wider audience of consumers)

 

The following firms will be used for marketing and community management:

– Blockchain IL

– Foxtail

– ICO Box

– MLG

– Amazix

 

Additionally, the document also discusses the services that will be provided from these marketing firms.

– Content creation and social media management

– Development of followers along various social media channels, especially Telegram and Twitter

– Community development

– Presence in applicable Blockchain and investment oriented newsletters

– Sponsored Youtube content/explainer video related to blockchain education

– Trade show and conference presence.

A figure containing adoption projections is also included. However, the assumptions and calculations used to develop the model are not discussed. Furthermore, there is an absence of fiscal projections for the project. The business development plan is also described via the roadmap presented in the executive summary.

In comparison, the token model is described with less detail than the business development plan. Fee structure is not clearly outlined. It is not certain whether GOV tokens will be the only method in which users will be able to access the ecosystem and make transactions, or whether GOV tokens provide some sort of discount when using them for purchases. Fee structure with regards to application publication and application/dataset purchases is not clearly outlined.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There are some vague assertions included when discussing some technical components of the platform. For example, it is stated that an “AI-driven UI system” will be used to improve the user experience of Blockhub. However, specific details on implementation is not presented. It is simply stated that the UI experience will be “generated with a combination of a UI specification and datasets fed into the resulting UI engine”.

A similar level of depth of detail is also provided for other aspects of the platform (Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality). The entirety of the content on smart contracts for Dataforce is contained within a few paragraphs and is described primarily in layman terms. Similarly, data storage is discussed (the team plans to use IPFS), but specific technical details regarding implementation is lacking. There are a number of dependencies that will be considered for the platform (Civic for identification, Basic Attention Token for advertisements, etc). However, a thorough evaluation on potential solutions regarding these aspects of the platform is not included.

Overall, the technical discussion is reads like a list of desired features as opposed to an informative discussion on the technology that will be used.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Regular security audits will be performed on Blockhub software using TLA+ for testing and verification. The Republic Foundation will oversee the progress of open source specifications and “work with other regulatory and standard bodies, including but not limited to ISO, IEC, and W3C”. Country of residence is required to sign up for the whitelist and private beta. A small disclaimer is included towards the end of the executive summary.

Documentation Market

Product

3.3
Product
Differentiation

What are the product's unique features / attributes / advantages? How is it different from other, similar products or projects? What makes it stand out or gives it an edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

Readiness of the full platform, including blockchain/smart-contract/token infrastructure; based on what's publicly available (not just claims).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
Concreteness of Development Plans

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional. Clear timeline for biz/tech development plans, funding-dependent milestones, details provided, etc.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

What is the level of innovation and development particularly with regard to blockchain technology and its utilization? Do the project's blockchain-related developments have value beyond the company's particular platform or network?

3.0
N/A
3 - Specific, platform-related automation via smart contract functionality.

Product

Differentiation: The executive summary outlines the viability of the product in the executive summary:

– Lower fees compared to other publishing avenues

– Low overhead due to our open source and decentralized structure

– Smoother ecommerce experience due to integrated payment options

– More tailored experiences due to trustless data exchange between apps

– More use cases than any other publication platforms

When assessing the alleged competitive aspects of the platform, it is evident that the organization presents the platform as a notable competitor to established publication platforms such as Google Play Store, Apple App Store, Steam Valve, etc. The most distinguishing feature of the platform which may give it a competitive edge compared to other blockchain-focused publishing platforms is the focus on data exchange between applications, allowing for cohesive user experience using Dataforce.

There are three levels of abstraction with regards to the value proposition of the Blockhub platform: a decentralized application marketplace (Spheris, for example), the ability to secure/monetize data using existing applications (Datum, for example), and the exchange of data between applications. There are competitors at each level, but there are much fewer projects that aim to target all three aspects.

The most notable competitor to Blockhub is Cardstack, which provides an application framework that allows for a “cohesive user experience with the fluidity of a consumer social network, while facilitating structured transactions like a line-of-business system”. Cardstack competes with Blockhub on most of the competitive aspects of the platform. However, Blockhub differentiates itself from Cardstack with the utilization of Republic for its governance structure, which aims to “reach consensus on subjective matters that cannot be captured entirely by software algorithms”. In comparison, Cardstack uses a governance structure that has a much more quantitative and mathematical approach which utilizes trust scores.

Readiness: It is stated in the roadmap that a proof-of-concept and a prototype has been developed. The company GitHub page contains 6 publicly available repositories (Blockhub SDK, API and smart contracts for the marketplace/data exchange/governance protocols, the Blockhub web client, and ecosystem improvement proposals).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented on the Hyperbridge website is presented as follows:

August 2017 – Idea and conceptualization

October 2017 – Team formation, market analysis, proof-of-concept

November 2017 – Whitepaper, prototype

December 2017 – Incorporation

January 2018 – Expanding team

May 2018 – Marketing efforts kicked off

May 2019 – Partnership for the future

More comprehensive roadmaps are presented in the executive summary document, which can found through the Hyperbridge website. Two roadmaps are included, one focusing on business development, the other focusing on technological development.

The business development roadmap is presented as follows:

PAST

– Team formed through a common vision and idea

– Conceptualization of sector needs and business viability

– Industrial sector analysis

– Legal, accounting, and tax specialists secured to ensure regulatory compliance of ICO

– Initial advisory board formed

– Incorporation of Hyperbridge Technology Inc in Canada

– Initial drafts of whitepaper written and edited

PRESENT

– Legal registration of Hyperbridge Technology Inc in Estonia

– Graphic design, media specialist, marketing firm, and community managers engaged to articulate and realize the Hyperbridge vision

– Private investment secured

– Hold presale for early investors

– Whitepaper improvements

JULY 2018

– Distribution of tokens, shortly after ICO

– Focus on exchange listing

OCTOBER 2018

– Customer feedback optimizations

– Bug bounty campaigns

– Partnership expansion

– Republic outreach

– Conferences

 

The technological development roadmap is presented as follows:

 

PAST

– Working on Wallet and Marketplace prototypes developed in-house

– Blockhub architecture designed

PRESENT

– Website developed

– Telegram bot created for spam control

– App development

– Token exchange

– Embedded browser

– Monetized mining

– Private messaging / group chat

– Launching our beta product and SDKs

– Republic governance system

– Blockhub marketplace with built-in governance system

– Dataforce network with built-in governance system

– Cross-platform support (Windows + Mac)

– Telegram bot created for spam control

– App publishing framework developed and ready for integration

– App development

– Data Tree

– Neur Integration

OCTOBER 2018

– Security auditing

– Dataforce Mainnet launch

– Releasing production applications

– Mobile support (iOS/Android)

 

Overall, the roadmaps included are exceedingly comprehensive. Major milestones are segregated into smaller (more specific) goals. The business development plant aligns with the business roadmap and specific details are provided for the technical roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most developments reached thus far (according to the business roadmap) have been focused on business development. When analyzing technology-based milestones, it is unclear what developments have been made with regards to the ecosystem, due to the lack of discussion within the documents. Content is publicly available on GitHub, but an assessment on what has been accomplished is not provided.

Feasiblity: Overall the goals set out by the organization are fairly ambitious considering the scope of the project. The beta version of the product is currently in development (current stage of development is uncertain) and the Mainnet is planned to release by October 2018. Feasibility is somewhat uncertain due to the lack of clarity with respect to how drastically the team intends to expand. Most business-related milestones are quite feasible, but the ability of the team to obtain meaningful partnerships is presently uncertain. The completion of not only the Mainnet release of the platform, but also Blockhub applications, as well as mobile support in October 2018 is quite ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: The Dataforce platform will be built on top of the Ethereum blockchain and will implement a data enrichment standard to categorize user data, which will be used seamlessly with applications running on Blockhub and will give users more control of their data. Smart contract functionality is the core component of the platform, but will not necessarily provide significant value outside the ecosystem of Blockhub applications. There are no developments that have significant impact with regards to the underlying blockchain infrastructure.

Product Company and Team

Market

3.7
Market
Target User Base

How big is the project's target user base, how large is its potential market?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
Direct Competition

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

4.0
N/A
4 - Few direct competitors (e.g., less than 5), or a leading solution. Blockchain solutions only starting to surface in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Blockchain Disruption

How strong is the potential for disruption of the market sector due to the introduction of blockchain technology, as it is utilized by the solution?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base of the platform is fairly widespread. Data providers will be compensated with GOV tokens. The data is then stored in a decentralized manner, where individuals will be able to purchase data. Thus, the platform targets all users that use online services (and wish to secure/monetize their data) as well as individuals that want access to a data marketplace.

Market Penetration Potential: The ability for market penetration depends on the willingness of individuals to leave their current ecosystem of applications and services. The migration from presently used applications to those that are built for Blockhub will most likely be the largest barrier of entry. Users will migrate when there are suitable applications within the Blockhub ecosystem, which requires sufficient development support for the platform. Attracting developers to an ecosystem with minimal outreach will be a challenge. At the present time, application users are aware of the issues with data security but will most likely continue to use existing solutions in the near future. If current solutions are able to successfully eliminate concerns with data security, then the incentive for users to switch platforms decreases, which reduces the incentives for platform migration to data monetization (the level of monetary compensation that the user will receive is uncertain) and streamlined personalized user experience.

Direct Competition: Legacy competitors for the application publication platforms include Google (Play Store), Apple (App Store), among many others. There are many blockchain solutions that aim to develop a data marketplace. However, when considering all of the goals that the platform aims to achieve (a decentralized application and data marketplace with cross-application data exchange capability), there are much fewer competitors. A notable competitor is Cardstack, which at the time of this review, has yet to complete their ICO.

Solution Advantage: Advantages compared to projects with a broader scope are clear. Hyperbridge Technology aims to provide a solution which allows users to monetize their data while allowing for the ability to have a greater user experience via secure inter-application communication.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for market disruption due to the introduction of blockchain technology is considerable. Users want receive compensation as well as access to services that provide them more control over their data. Cryptocurrency provides an incentive structure for users to contribute data. The platform also provides users granular control of the data that is collected.

Long-Term Vision: Hyperbridge Technology aims to develop an ecosystem that will facilitate a paradigm shift in user data management. The organization seems to value decentralization and has developed a governance structure for the benefit of the community. Blockhub is planned to compete for marketshare and potentially gain dominance.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.0
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

When was the company founded, how mature is it? Has it raised significant funds? Where relevant, this should address the parent company. For reviewers (not for tooltip): Check company LinkedIn and Crunchbase profiles. Impression summary should list basic information such as founding date, location/s, previous fundraising rounds (via crunchbase), maybe number of employees (via linkedin).

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Team Assembly and Commitment

What is the structure of the team (core members, advisers, contributors)? Are all necessary positions filled or is the company still looking for key team participants? Are the team members fully committed to the project (or involved with other projects simultaneously)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

Are LinkedIn (or Github, or other professional) profile links provided, and do they show involvement in the project and relevant previous experience? For reviewers (not for tooltip): If the team is quite large, C-level and certain key team members (such as lead tech/blockchain developers) should be looked at, while other than that, a sample is fine (but this should be mentioned or reflected in the language ["It appears as though..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

How relevant are the team members' backgrounds and experience to the project and its requirements? Do they come from related industries and have in-depth knowledge of their respective fields?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

What kind of launch partners and early adopters does the project have?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Hyperbridge Technology was incorporated in Vancouver, Canada in 2017. It is not clear whether the organization has received significant levels of investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Overall, the core team is quite young. Thus, professional experience is fairly limited. The team is fairly small with 8 core team members and 3 advisors. The organization plans to expand their development team after the ICO (July 2018). One of the advisors does not disclose their affiliation with Hyperbridge Technology. One of the core team members (.NET software engineer) and an advisor do not disclose their affiliation with Hyperbridge Technology in their LinkedIn profiles. Two of the four individuals with a technical background are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects, thus the level of commitment to Hyperbridge Technology is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All 8 core team members provide links to social media accounts on the Hyperbridge website. The smart contract developer and one of the co-founders (self-taught programmer) provide links to their GitHub profiles. The co-founder is much more active on GitHub compared to the smart contract developer. The same co-founder also provides a link to their YouTube channel, which contains content that is seemingly unrelated to the organization (vlogs, video game content, etc.). The amount of information provided on team member’s LinkedIn accounts is variable. Three advisors are also included on the website, along with links to LinkedIn profiles that contain sufficient levels of detail with regards to professional experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: It is not evident that any of the core team members have blockchain-related development experience. When assessing individuals with a clear technical background based off of corresponding LinkedIn profiles, it can be seen that the most accomplished individual (Founder and President of Sparcpoint, a software company that focuses on small business development) does not list Hyperbridge Technology on their profile. The Unity developer is concurrently involved with a game company (Robot Sea Monster Games) and was a Night Shift Supervisor at Weatherford. The co-founder is a self-taught programmer, and the smart contract developer has had a software engineering internship at Amazon and worked as a senior software engineer at Vocolife, and a full-stack developer at Blue Kangaroo (details of the roles and responsibilities of these positions are not included in the individuals LinkedIn profile).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is seemingly a lack of individuals with professional technical experience, especially with regards to blockchain-related development. Additionally, There are no individuals on the core team that have a clear background in law or finance. Overall, the team is seemingly at the initial stages of formation and will most likely require additional individuals to successfully complete the project.

Strategic Partnerships: Specific (notable) launch partners and early adopters are not evident.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.7
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized, or centralized components fully justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Use cases are of GOV tokens are listed in the whitepaper as follows:
– Premium features (such as built-in VPN, mining, etc.)
– Unlocking marketplace apps
– In-app purchases/upgrades
– Publishing apps
– Fees from transactions, mining, and other non-basic operations
– Data providers will be compensated for data with Republic tokens.
– Data consumers will pay for data with Republic tokens.
– Data operators will accept Republic tokens for their services.

GOV tokens are required to access services and as a result, are essential to the platform. Additionally, GOV tokens are also used for the governance structure of the platform (Republic protocol).

Token Economy: GOV is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to access services and used for the voting mechanism within the Hyperbridge ecosystem (Republic protocol). The level of compensation that users will receive in exchange for their data is not clearly outlined. The fee structure that is used for the platform is also not thoroughly discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure is described thoroughly in the Republic whitepaper. Elected representatives (delegates) are voted into power by GOV token holders and form the Council, which are responsible for the “management and decision making of significant matters” at a high-level. Local-level (focused) governance is performed by the Committee, and the Judiciary is responsible for settling disputes within the Republic. Details of each governance role is outlined in the Republic whitepaper and the Constitution that governs the Republic is also included. The voting mechanism is also outlined.

It is stated that data will be initially stored in a decentralized manner using IPFS but “but as more options become available, users may want to switch”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The soft cap and the hard cap of the token sale(s) are not specified. It is stated in the executive summary that the ICO will take place in July 2018.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the executive summary as follows:
40% – Product
20% – Marketing
10% – Administrative
10% – Legal affairs
10% – Operation
5% – Auditing
5% – IT infrastructure

The use of proceeds does not depend on funding level. The allocation for product development is fairly large and is not discussed in further detail.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the executive summary as follows:

25% – 2018 Token sale
5% – 2019 Token sale
5% – 2020 Token sale
10% – Persistent token sale
15% – Partners
5% – Advisors
25% – Team

Details are not provided with regards to future token sales (2019, 2020, persistent). Furthermore, vesting periods are not clearly outlined. The level of community involvement is uncertain due to the lack of details of future token sales. It is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: Three whitepapers are included on the Hyperbridge website which discuss various aspects of the ecosystem: Dataforce, Blockhub, and Republic. Additionally, there is an executive summary that also provides further information of business-related details of Blockhub, as well as the development roadmap and token details. An assessment of the platform based on the Howey Test is also provided. There is a lack of discussion on blockchain-focused competitors. Most of the content focuses on discussing how the platform works on a logistical level. Technology plan presentation is discussed, but detail is lacking. Legal considerations are discussed fairly briefly (approximately half a page) towards the end of the executive summary. The company GitHub page is not referenced in the whitepapers/website/executive summary, but can be found via manual search.

Readability: The documents are fairly easy to read. There is no obfuscation of the whitepapers with the overuse of buzzwords and technical jargon.

 Transparency: The documents do not adequately describe the technology in sufficient detail. There is minimal discussion regarding the technical issues that the organization face or will face as the platform develops. The current stage of development is not discussed with great detail: it is stated that a proof-of-concept and prototype has been built (according to the development roadmap), but thorough discussion regarding these developments are not included in the documents or the website. However, the company GitHub page is moderately active and contains 6 public repositories (Blockhub SDK, API and smart contracts for the marketplace/data exchange/governance protocols, the Blockhub web client, and ecosystem improvement proposals). Legal considerations are minimal.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The majority of the business plan (for Blockhub) is discussed in the executive summary as opposed to the whitepaper. Developers will pay a publishing fee as well as a percentage (unspecified) of the sales revenue which is transferred back into the Blockhub ecosystem. Users will use GOV tokens to purchase apps, premium features, and for voting purposes. Clients are also able to purchase data collected from users.

Growth strategies are also adequately discussed. The executive summary outlines the customer acquisition tactics that the organization will use which includes:

– Airdrops & Bounty Campaigns

– Beta testing

– Analytics

– Leverage existent user groups

– Early adoption program

– Incentivization Programs

– Conversion of pre-ICO social media participant groups

– Targets (digital distribution to a wider audience of consumers)

 

The following firms will be used for marketing and community management:

– Blockchain IL

– Foxtail

– ICO Box

– MLG

– Amazix

 

Additionally, the document also discusses the services that will be provided from these marketing firms.

– Content creation and social media management

– Development of followers along various social media channels, especially Telegram and Twitter

– Community development

– Presence in applicable Blockchain and investment oriented newsletters

– Sponsored Youtube content/explainer video related to blockchain education

– Trade show and conference presence.

A figure containing adoption projections is also included. However, the assumptions and calculations used to develop the model are not discussed. Furthermore, there is an absence of fiscal projections for the project. The business development plan is also described via the roadmap presented in the executive summary.

In comparison, the token model is described with less detail than the business development plan. Fee structure is not clearly outlined. It is not certain whether GOV tokens will be the only method in which users will be able to access the ecosystem and make transactions, or whether GOV tokens provide some sort of discount when using them for purchases. Fee structure with regards to application publication and application/dataset purchases is not clearly outlined.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: There are some vague assertions included when discussing some technical components of the platform. For example, it is stated that an “AI-driven UI system” will be used to improve the user experience of Blockhub. However, specific details on implementation is not presented. It is simply stated that the UI experience will be “generated with a combination of a UI specification and datasets fed into the resulting UI engine”.

A similar level of depth of detail is also provided for other aspects of the platform (Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality). The entirety of the content on smart contracts for Dataforce is contained within a few paragraphs and is described primarily in layman terms. Similarly, data storage is discussed (the team plans to use IPFS), but specific technical details regarding implementation is lacking. There are a number of dependencies that will be considered for the platform (Civic for identification, Basic Attention Token for advertisements, etc). However, a thorough evaluation on potential solutions regarding these aspects of the platform is not included.

Overall, the technical discussion is reads like a list of desired features as opposed to an informative discussion on the technology that will be used.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: Regular security audits will be performed on Blockhub software using TLA+ for testing and verification. The Republic Foundation will oversee the progress of open source specifications and “work with other regulatory and standard bodies, including but not limited to ISO, IEC, and W3C”. Country of residence is required to sign up for the whitelist and private beta. A small disclaimer is included towards the end of the executive summary.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

4.0
N/A
4 - Satisfactory coverage.
Readability

How easy is it to read and understand the documentation, comprehend the project's goals and trajectory.

4.0
N/A
4 - Relatively easy to read and understand, even if complex.
Transparency

Level of disclosure of pertinent information regarding the company and the project, including current stages of development, issues that have been identified and how to address them, potential problems, access to resources and repositories (github repository, patent applications). Honesty with regard to what the project can (vs. wishes to) achieve.

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure. Glossing over important issues.
Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model

What stages are to be achieved, how are they to be carried out and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the token model and how well does it fit into the company's overall business model.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is based on unverified assumptions, business and token models are are not fully laid out, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain

What are the platform's core and additional features, how are they to be implemented and according to what timeline, what is the long-term plan. How well thought-out is the use of blockchain technology and how integral is it to the platform.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, does not address the underlying issues.
Legal Review and Risk Assessment

How professional are the disclaimers, risk assessments, terms and conditions, etc. Is the company working with respectable law/accounting firms? What about due diligence and smart contract auditing? Is a SAFT structure being used (and is the SAFT accessible)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.8

Product

Differentiation: The executive summary outlines the viability of the product in the executive summary:

– Lower fees compared to other publishing avenues

– Low overhead due to our open source and decentralized structure

– Smoother ecommerce experience due to integrated payment options

– More tailored experiences due to trustless data exchange between apps

– More use cases than any other publication platforms

When assessing the alleged competitive aspects of the platform, it is evident that the organization presents the platform as a notable competitor to established publication platforms such as Google Play Store, Apple App Store, Steam Valve, etc. The most distinguishing feature of the platform which may give it a competitive edge compared to other blockchain-focused publishing platforms is the focus on data exchange between applications, allowing for cohesive user experience using Dataforce.

There are three levels of abstraction with regards to the value proposition of the Blockhub platform: a decentralized application marketplace (Spheris, for example), the ability to secure/monetize data using existing applications (Datum, for example), and the exchange of data between applications. There are competitors at each level, but there are much fewer projects that aim to target all three aspects.

The most notable competitor to Blockhub is Cardstack, which provides an application framework that allows for a “cohesive user experience with the fluidity of a consumer social network, while facilitating structured transactions like a line-of-business system”. Cardstack competes with Blockhub on most of the competitive aspects of the platform. However, Blockhub differentiates itself from Cardstack with the utilization of Republic for its governance structure, which aims to “reach consensus on subjective matters that cannot be captured entirely by software algorithms”. In comparison, Cardstack uses a governance structure that has a much more quantitative and mathematical approach which utilizes trust scores.

Readiness: It is stated in the roadmap that a proof-of-concept and a prototype has been developed. The company GitHub page contains 6 publicly available repositories (Blockhub SDK, API and smart contracts for the marketplace/data exchange/governance protocols, the Blockhub web client, and ecosystem improvement proposals).

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented on the Hyperbridge website is presented as follows:

August 2017 – Idea and conceptualization

October 2017 – Team formation, market analysis, proof-of-concept

November 2017 – Whitepaper, prototype

December 2017 – Incorporation

January 2018 – Expanding team

May 2018 – Marketing efforts kicked off

May 2019 – Partnership for the future

More comprehensive roadmaps are presented in the executive summary document, which can found through the Hyperbridge website. Two roadmaps are included, one focusing on business development, the other focusing on technological development.

The business development roadmap is presented as follows:

PAST

– Team formed through a common vision and idea

– Conceptualization of sector needs and business viability

– Industrial sector analysis

– Legal, accounting, and tax specialists secured to ensure regulatory compliance of ICO

– Initial advisory board formed

– Incorporation of Hyperbridge Technology Inc in Canada

– Initial drafts of whitepaper written and edited

PRESENT

– Legal registration of Hyperbridge Technology Inc in Estonia

– Graphic design, media specialist, marketing firm, and community managers engaged to articulate and realize the Hyperbridge vision

– Private investment secured

– Hold presale for early investors

– Whitepaper improvements

JULY 2018

– Distribution of tokens, shortly after ICO

– Focus on exchange listing

OCTOBER 2018

– Customer feedback optimizations

– Bug bounty campaigns

– Partnership expansion

– Republic outreach

– Conferences

 

The technological development roadmap is presented as follows:

 

PAST

– Working on Wallet and Marketplace prototypes developed in-house

– Blockhub architecture designed

PRESENT

– Website developed

– Telegram bot created for spam control

– App development

– Token exchange

– Embedded browser

– Monetized mining

– Private messaging / group chat

– Launching our beta product and SDKs

– Republic governance system

– Blockhub marketplace with built-in governance system

– Dataforce network with built-in governance system

– Cross-platform support (Windows + Mac)

– Telegram bot created for spam control

– App publishing framework developed and ready for integration

– App development

– Data Tree

– Neur Integration

OCTOBER 2018

– Security auditing

– Dataforce Mainnet launch

– Releasing production applications

– Mobile support (iOS/Android)

 

Overall, the roadmaps included are exceedingly comprehensive. Major milestones are segregated into smaller (more specific) goals. The business development plant aligns with the business roadmap and specific details are provided for the technical roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most developments reached thus far (according to the business roadmap) have been focused on business development. When analyzing technology-based milestones, it is unclear what developments have been made with regards to the ecosystem, due to the lack of discussion within the documents. Content is publicly available on GitHub, but an assessment on what has been accomplished is not provided.

Feasiblity: Overall the goals set out by the organization are fairly ambitious considering the scope of the project. The beta version of the product is currently in development (current stage of development is uncertain) and the Mainnet is planned to release by October 2018. Feasibility is somewhat uncertain due to the lack of clarity with respect to how drastically the team intends to expand. Most business-related milestones are quite feasible, but the ability of the team to obtain meaningful partnerships is presently uncertain. The completion of not only the Mainnet release of the platform, but also Blockhub applications, as well as mobile support in October 2018 is quite ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: The Dataforce platform will be built on top of the Ethereum blockchain and will implement a data enrichment standard to categorize user data, which will be used seamlessly with applications running on Blockhub and will give users more control of their data. Smart contract functionality is the core component of the platform, but will not necessarily provide significant value outside the ecosystem of Blockhub applications. There are no developments that have significant impact with regards to the underlying blockchain infrastructure.

Category Breakdown
Differentiation

What are the product's unique features / attributes / advantages? How is it different from other, similar products or projects? What makes it stand out or gives it an edge?

4.0
N/A
4 - Evident and relevant.
Readiness

Readiness of the full platform, including blockchain/smart-contract/token infrastructure; based on what's publicly available (not just claims).

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration still in conceptualization.
Concreteness of Development Plans

How detailed is the roadmap? How well defined is the timeframe? How concrete and detailed are the milestones and how well are they correlated with the business and technology development plans, as well as with funding goals (i.e., fundraising dependent)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional. Clear timeline for biz/tech development plans, funding-dependent milestones, details provided, etc.
Current Position within Roadmap

How far along is the project as a whole relative to the plans and roadmap (including growth, not just platform development)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Getting there.
Feasiblity

Are the project's development plans reasonable? Does the long term vision align with core objectives and current development efforts? Does the timeframe make sense?

2.0
N/A
2 - Very ambitious.
Blockchain Innovation

What is the level of innovation and development particularly with regard to blockchain technology and its utilization? Do the project's blockchain-related developments have value beyond the company's particular platform or network?

3.0
N/A
3 - Specific, platform-related automation via smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
3.3

Market

Target User Base: The target user base of the platform is fairly widespread. Data providers will be compensated with GOV tokens. The data is then stored in a decentralized manner, where individuals will be able to purchase data. Thus, the platform targets all users that use online services (and wish to secure/monetize their data) as well as individuals that want access to a data marketplace.

Market Penetration Potential: The ability for market penetration depends on the willingness of individuals to leave their current ecosystem of applications and services. The migration from presently used applications to those that are built for Blockhub will most likely be the largest barrier of entry. Users will migrate when there are suitable applications within the Blockhub ecosystem, which requires sufficient development support for the platform. Attracting developers to an ecosystem with minimal outreach will be a challenge. At the present time, application users are aware of the issues with data security but will most likely continue to use existing solutions in the near future. If current solutions are able to successfully eliminate concerns with data security, then the incentive for users to switch platforms decreases, which reduces the incentives for platform migration to data monetization (the level of monetary compensation that the user will receive is uncertain) and streamlined personalized user experience.

Direct Competition: Legacy competitors for the application publication platforms include Google (Play Store), Apple (App Store), among many others. There are many blockchain solutions that aim to develop a data marketplace. However, when considering all of the goals that the platform aims to achieve (a decentralized application and data marketplace with cross-application data exchange capability), there are much fewer competitors. A notable competitor is Cardstack, which at the time of this review, has yet to complete their ICO.

Solution Advantage: Advantages compared to projects with a broader scope are clear. Hyperbridge Technology aims to provide a solution which allows users to monetize their data while allowing for the ability to have a greater user experience via secure inter-application communication.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for market disruption due to the introduction of blockchain technology is considerable. Users want receive compensation as well as access to services that provide them more control over their data. Cryptocurrency provides an incentive structure for users to contribute data. The platform also provides users granular control of the data that is collected.

Long-Term Vision: Hyperbridge Technology aims to develop an ecosystem that will facilitate a paradigm shift in user data management. The organization seems to value decentralization and has developed a governance structure for the benefit of the community. Blockhub is planned to compete for marketshare and potentially gain dominance.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

How big is the project's target user base, how large is its potential market?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Market Penetration Potential

How easy or difficult will it be to penetrate this market sector on the scale proposed by the project? How dominant is the hold of current market leaders, and are they maintaining a competitive edge? For reviewers (not for tooltip): This should be generally with regard to both traditional and emerging blockchain solutions (assuming that in most sectors, there are no leading blockchain solutions as of yet, but there may start to be). Also, token regulatory issues that apply equally to all should not be stressed here, unless the project has an extra regulatory issue, or (in the other direction) if the regulatory measures taken help it considerably with market penetration...

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat difficult or unlikely.
Direct Competition

How many direct competitors does the project have (that are already known or can be easily found with a simple search), and how much further along are they? This should focus on blockchain-related competition but can include established or notable traditional (non-blockchain) competitors with a strong hold.

4.0
N/A
4 - Few direct competitors (e.g., less than 5), or a leading solution. Blockchain solutions only starting to surface in the sector.
Solution Advantage

How strong is the project's unique selling proposition (i.e., its stated advantage over similar or comparable ones)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Blockchain Disruption

How strong is the potential for disruption of the market sector due to the introduction of blockchain technology, as it is utilized by the solution?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, evident.
Long-Term Vision

What are the long term goals and plans of the project? (In terms of concrete plans, not just hype or vague assertions.)

3.0
N/A
3 - Gain hold over a particular market segment, expand global outreach, possibly expand into other segments or sectors.
Market Score:
3.7

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Hyperbridge Technology was incorporated in Vancouver, Canada in 2017. It is not clear whether the organization has received significant levels of investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Overall, the core team is quite young. Thus, professional experience is fairly limited. The team is fairly small with 8 core team members and 3 advisors. The organization plans to expand their development team after the ICO (July 2018). One of the advisors does not disclose their affiliation with Hyperbridge Technology. One of the core team members (.NET software engineer) and an advisor do not disclose their affiliation with Hyperbridge Technology in their LinkedIn profiles. Two of the four individuals with a technical background are concurrently involved with other organizations/projects, thus the level of commitment to Hyperbridge Technology is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All 8 core team members provide links to social media accounts on the Hyperbridge website. The smart contract developer and one of the co-founders (self-taught programmer) provide links to their GitHub profiles. The co-founder is much more active on GitHub compared to the smart contract developer. The same co-founder also provides a link to their YouTube channel, which contains content that is seemingly unrelated to the organization (vlogs, video game content, etc.). The amount of information provided on team member’s LinkedIn accounts is variable. Three advisors are also included on the website, along with links to LinkedIn profiles that contain sufficient levels of detail with regards to professional experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: It is not evident that any of the core team members have blockchain-related development experience. When assessing individuals with a clear technical background based off of corresponding LinkedIn profiles, it can be seen that the most accomplished individual (Founder and President of Sparcpoint, a software company that focuses on small business development) does not list Hyperbridge Technology on their profile. The Unity developer is concurrently involved with a game company (Robot Sea Monster Games) and was a Night Shift Supervisor at Weatherford. The co-founder is a self-taught programmer, and the smart contract developer has had a software engineering internship at Amazon and worked as a senior software engineer at Vocolife, and a full-stack developer at Blue Kangaroo (details of the roles and responsibilities of these positions are not included in the individuals LinkedIn profile).

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is seemingly a lack of individuals with professional technical experience, especially with regards to blockchain-related development. Additionally, There are no individuals on the core team that have a clear background in law or finance. Overall, the team is seemingly at the initial stages of formation and will most likely require additional individuals to successfully complete the project.

Strategic Partnerships: Specific (notable) launch partners and early adopters are not evident.

 

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

When was the company founded, how mature is it? Has it raised significant funds? Where relevant, this should address the parent company. For reviewers (not for tooltip): Check company LinkedIn and Crunchbase profiles. Impression summary should list basic information such as founding date, location/s, previous fundraising rounds (via crunchbase), maybe number of employees (via linkedin).

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Team Assembly and Commitment

What is the structure of the team (core members, advisers, contributors)? Are all necessary positions filled or is the company still looking for key team participants? Are the team members fully committed to the project (or involved with other projects simultaneously)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Background of Lead/Core Team Members

Are LinkedIn (or Github, or other professional) profile links provided, and do they show involvement in the project and relevant previous experience? For reviewers (not for tooltip): If the team is quite large, C-level and certain key team members (such as lead tech/blockchain developers) should be looked at, while other than that, a sample is fine (but this should be mentioned or reflected in the language ["It appears as though..."]).

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Relevance of Team's Previous Experience and Skill Set

How relevant are the team members' backgrounds and experience to the project and its requirements? Do they come from related industries and have in-depth knowledge of their respective fields?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking or inconsistent.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Do the team members' backgrounds and experience appear to collectively cover the project requirements? This includes but is not limited to blockchain expertise.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

What kind of launch partners and early adopters does the project have?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really.
Company and Team Score:
2.0

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Use cases are of GOV tokens are listed in the whitepaper as follows:
– Premium features (such as built-in VPN, mining, etc.)
– Unlocking marketplace apps
– In-app purchases/upgrades
– Publishing apps
– Fees from transactions, mining, and other non-basic operations
– Data providers will be compensated for data with Republic tokens.
– Data consumers will pay for data with Republic tokens.
– Data operators will accept Republic tokens for their services.

GOV tokens are required to access services and as a result, are essential to the platform. Additionally, GOV tokens are also used for the governance structure of the platform (Republic protocol).

Token Economy: GOV is an ERC20 compliant token and is used to access services and used for the voting mechanism within the Hyperbridge ecosystem (Republic protocol). The level of compensation that users will receive in exchange for their data is not clearly outlined. The fee structure that is used for the platform is also not thoroughly discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): The governance structure is described thoroughly in the Republic whitepaper. Elected representatives (delegates) are voted into power by GOV token holders and form the Council, which are responsible for the “management and decision making of significant matters” at a high-level. Local-level (focused) governance is performed by the Committee, and the Judiciary is responsible for settling disputes within the Republic. Details of each governance role is outlined in the Republic whitepaper and the Constitution that governs the Republic is also included. The voting mechanism is also outlined.

It is stated that data will be initially stored in a decentralized manner using IPFS but “but as more options become available, users may want to switch”.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The soft cap and the hard cap of the token sale(s) are not specified. It is stated in the executive summary that the ICO will take place in July 2018.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the executive summary as follows:
40% – Product
20% – Marketing
10% – Administrative
10% – Legal affairs
10% – Operation
5% – Auditing
5% – IT infrastructure

The use of proceeds does not depend on funding level. The allocation for product development is fairly large and is not discussed in further detail.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the executive summary as follows:

25% – 2018 Token sale
5% – 2019 Token sale
5% – 2020 Token sale
10% – Persistent token sale
15% – Partners
5% – Advisors
25% – Team

Details are not provided with regards to future token sales (2019, 2020, persistent). Furthermore, vesting periods are not clearly outlined. The level of community involvement is uncertain due to the lack of details of future token sales. It is unclear whether unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Category Breakdown
Value Proposition of Token

How much of a need is there for the token? What is the token's utility value, and what is its value as a security?

4.0
N/A
4 - Token entitles holder to valuable or useful rights (such as access to services), and is essential to platform.
Token Economy

How well defined and sustainable is the token economy? This should include circulation, fees, earn/spend mechanisms, inflation/deflation mechanisms, etc.

2.0
N/A
2 - Loosely defined, uncertain or faulty, raises cause for concern.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the solution other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)? The purpose here is not to penalize use of centralized components per se, but to assess how decentralization is incorporated.

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized, or centralized components fully justified by business and technology models.
Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts)

How sensible are the project's min/max raise amounts or soft/hard caps? (Related to Use of Proceeds but broader).

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy or nonsensical.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

How well-defined and sensible is the planned use of proceeds / fund allocation?

2.0
N/A
2 - Use of funds only loosely defined.
Token Allocation

How well-defined and reasonable is the token allocation (including vesting, what's done with unsold tokens, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unclear or suspicious.
Token Economics Score:
2.7

Use this code to share the ratings on your website