OSA DC

Aims to neutralize inefficiencies in the retail industry by uniting disconnected parties - manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and third parties. This connection will improve inventory tracking, consumer trust, and product waste.

About OSA DC

OSA Decentralized Solution (OSA DC Solution) is built on a existing platform (OSA Hybrid Platform), which has serviced over 20 retailers and manufacturers.
OSA Hybrid Platform (OSA HP) is a system which manages optimal product shelf availability. OSA DC Solution is a range of technologies that aim to alleviate some of the current issues with supply chain management, namely the inconsistency of product information and the lack of data availability between retailers and manufacturers. Data is collected in real-time from manufacturers, retailers, consumers, open data sources and are then analyzed and alerts are generated.

OSA Coins are rewarded to consumers for sharing consumer data which will “guide manufacturers and railers to produce better products and improve business processes to deliver better services” and are used as fuel for the ecosystem and as a reward for consumers.

OSE tokens are tokens that are used for each business event that takes place within the OSA ecosystem, where each OSA token ” represents a business KPI for a specific use case in an individual store”.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.2
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very difficult to understand.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
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: A number of documents are provided through the company website: the whitepaper, a fact sheet, an information memorandum and the terms and conditions of the platform/token. The token contracts are publicly available on the company GitHub page. The technology plan is not thoroughly discussed (the organization plans to integrate machine learning and automate most of the platform). The business plan lacks some details regarding the fee structure. Details regarding the company and the team are presented clearly. Legal content is professional and fairly thorough.

Readability: The whitepaper is well-written and organized. Information is presented clearly without deliberate obfuscation with the use of buzzwords or technical terms.

Transparency: The details of the token sale and fee structure of the platform are not clearly outlined. The token bonus structure contains contradictory information and may mislead readers. Limitations of the platform and challenges that the company faces are not sufficiently discussed. The organization provides a self-assessment in the MVP section of the company website. Here, it can be seen that some details of the assessment are provided which are not discussed adequately in the whitepaper, such as the company’s plan to develop an off-chain voting system as well as the discussion regarding the legal uncertainty of the legal status of crypto-related rating sites.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: An overview of the business model is presented in the whitepaper. There are three primary revenue streams: − a one-time ICO rating fee, − a quarterly post-ICO rating listing fee, and − a quarterly user account charge to access detailed information of the analyses Specific fee structure is not outlined. It is stated that token holders will receive dividends, but the level of information regarding the amount (or proportion relative to revenue) of dividends that the token holder can expect to receive is low.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Although the platform does not seem demanding from a technological development perspective, there seems to be a lack of discussion regarding some aspects of the platform that the organization intends to implement. For example, the voting mechanism is revealed to be based off of an off-chain according to the self-assessment that can be found in the MVP. However, this detail is not stated elsewhere. Furthermore, future developments including machine learning integration are not discussed beyond milestones on the roadmap.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a document that discussed the terms and conditions of the token offering which can be found through the company website. The document is 7 pages long and is fairly comprehensive. Residents from the United States of America are not permitted to participate in the token sale. Risk factors of the platform, token, and token sale are discussed fairly thoroughly and a disclaimer is included towards the end of the whitepaper. Overall, legal content is professionally written and fairly comprehensive.

Documentation Market

Product

2.8
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some; has a certain edge or angle.
Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration in testing or proof-of-concept.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).

Product

Differentiation: The platform aims to provide a more “holistic prediction and analysis” by combining various data sources and directs action using alerts. The platform monitors the supply chain in it’s entirety, including the last element of the supply chain (the store shelf).

Readiness: OSA has launched the OSA Hybrid Platform (OSA HP) in 2016, a platform that manages real-time optimal product shelf availability using AI, and ran in 41 retail stores and manufacturers including Mars, L’Oreal, DANONE, EFES, and JTI.

Concreteness of Development Plans: April 2015
– Team formation
June 2015
– Product concept developed
July 2015
– Product concept test (MVP)
October 2015
– Beta version introduced
November 2015
– Data integration and test started

February 2016
– New machine learning protocol tested
March 2016
– Product updated, OSA technical architecture introduced
June 2016
– Internal proof of concept (POC) approved
July 2016
– Machine learning models updated
August 2016
– External POC tested
November 2016
– POC finished: 5.4% sales growth for our partner companies
December 2016
– Image recognition POC introduced

March 2017
– Image recognition POC tested
April 2017
– Machine learning models upgraded
July 2017
– New UI/UX solution introduced
September 2017
– New big data architecture development begins
October 2017
– Integration with transaction data operators
November 2017
– Master data catalogue tested
December 2017
– Image recognition model developed for 300 products (in partnership with Neuromation)

January 2018
– New big data architecture introduced
– Master data catalogue tests
February 2018
– Machine learning model enhancement
May 2018
– Blockchain & smart contracts development (stage 1)
– Blockchain testing
June 2018
– Image Recognition model development for the next 1000 products
– Master data catalogue development
October 2018
– OSA mobile app development
– Consumer app development and blockchain development (stage 2: entire supply chain implementation)
November 2018
– Develop the platform for the entire supply chain IT, ML, and IoT functionalities
December 2018
– Image recognition model development and functionality enhancement
– Machine learning model enhancement
– Product rating system development
– AR functionality development; blockchain development (stage 3: decentralization)

March 2019
– AR & ML functionality enhancement
April 2019
– OSA Hybrid Platform upgrade
August 2019
– OSA Decentralized platform development and implementation
December 2019
– Product tracebility development
– New functionalities for machine learning processes (automated promos, assortment, pricing, recommendations)

The roadmap is fairly comprehensive and has fairly wide timespan. Furthermore, OSA provides a funding-based roadmap and roadmap that outlines the marketing strategy after the conclusion of the token sale towards the end of the document. Overall, there is a large number of milestones. However, more details could be provided for some milestones that are “upgrades” or “enhancements”.

Current Position within Roadmap: According to the roadmap the organization has had some particularly notable technical and business-related achievements due to the development of the existing platform (OSA Hybrid Platform). There is much technical development that needs to be done with regards to the machine learning, image recognition, and blockchain integration.

Feasiblity: Non-blockchain related milestones seem reasonable (although some milestones are somewhat vague). However, it is stated that smart contract and blockchain development was planned for May 2018. Based on the information presented on the company GitHub page, blockchain-related developments have been minimal. Thus, the goal to have the entire supply chain integrated into the blockchain solution by October 2018 seems fairly ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: It is not evident that OSA is providing value to other projects from a blockchain technology perspective. The organization is simply using blockchain technology to attempt to enhance an existing product.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

3.2
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...

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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 for the product are consumers, retailers, and manufacturers. As a result, the demographic for the platform is the mass market.

Market Penetration Potential: There are a significant number of projects aiming to alleviate some of the issues that exist within supply chain systems. As a result, OSA will have difficulty competing in this sector and will require a good technical and business development strategy.

Direct Competition: Competitors are listed in the whitepaper as follows:

– Blue Yonder
– AIPoly
– Nextorbit
– Ambrosus
– INS
– Lokad
– Provenance.org
– Radiostud.io
– IBM Blockchain for food safety
– Origintrail.io
– Mojix
– Retail robotics & Blockchain
– Splice Machine

Solution Advantage: The most evident advantage of the platform is the success of the existing platform and business network. It is stated that the OSA Hybrid Platform has operated in “41 retail stores and manufacturers including Mars, L’Oreal, DANONE, EFES, and JTI”. Beyond the existing development of OSA Hybrid Platform, the solution aims to gain an advantage over similar solutions by utilizing a much wider set of data which will inform users of the status of products based on nearly every step of the supply chain.

Blockchain Disruption: The implementation of blockchain technology alleviates two issues which are listed in the whitepaper: trust in product composition/ingredients and trust in product storage and handling. With the implementation of blockchain technology, the potential for disruption in supply chain systems is evident.

Long-Term Vision: The organization provides fairly comprehensive roadmaps (funding-based, marketing-based, and timeline-based). The organization plans to further develop their existing product and compete with other supply chain solutions.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

3.8
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).

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Sufficently assembled and committed.
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..."]).

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Strategic Partnerships

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Large-scale, well-known enterprises.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: OSA Decentralized Limited is an existing business that was established in 2015 and is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. It is stated that role of E.E.C. EXTRA ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION LIMITED is to “develop, operate and maintain the OSA platform”. It is stated that the OS Hybrid Platform has generated over $1MM in revenue since its launch in 2016 and that contributors have donated $4.2MM for the development and deployment of the platform.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Team profiles are included on the company website along with short bio descriptions. The executive team is fairly large, with over 80 team members and 16 advisors. Multiple lead team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations and the level of information presented on their LinkedIn profiles is lacking for the most part.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles are provided for most team members on the company website. Using a sample size of 10 lead team members, most show involvement with OSA and provide information regarding prior work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most individuals with a technical background were/are working with the OCA Hybrid Platform. It is not evident that the team has had significant experience with blockchain-related development. However, individuals with business-related development are well suited to project requirements.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team skill set is skewed towards business development. There are a fair number of individuals with a technical position on the team (approximately 10). However, it is not evident that these individuals have had extensive blockchain-related development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: It is stated that OSA has a “close partnership with ECR organization that unites more than 70 leading manufacturers and retailers”. It is stated that the the OSA Hybrid Platform serves a number of manufacturers which include (but are not limited to):
– Mars
– L’Oreal
– DANONE
– EFES
– JTI

Furthermore, it is stated that the organization is partnered with Ambrosus. However, the details regarding the “partnership” is unclear.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.5
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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: It is stated that new vendors that join the platform will have to pay using OSA coins. OSA tokens are also vested to establish proof-of-importance for masternodes. The following are OSA platform fees which include (but are not limited to): – OSA team remuneration – Compensation for masternode operators – OSA infrastructure fee – Compensation for our technology partners – Compensation for data providers Tokens will be required for vendors to access the platform.

Token Economy: The number of tokens is based on the ETH to USD exchange rate at the time of the whitepaper publication and the hard cap of $40MM USD. As such the total number of tokens issued is 2,285,714,285. It is explicitly stated that OSA has “intentionally chosen to refrain from listing exact percentages for each of OSA’s platform fees” due to the possibility of establishing major partnerships that would create substantial value for customers. This justification is quite weak and a preliminary assessment of platform fees should be included in the document. Another weak justification is included in the document, which states that the cost of cloud storage and cloud computing services might decrease “as storage technology, microprocessors, and core computational applications become increasing advanced and cost-efficient”, thus an assessment on costs is not required. This is an insufficient justification, as projections always have an element of uncertainty. Reasonable estimates (along with an adequate discussion of relevant assumptions) should be provided.

System Decentralization (besides token): Various aspects of the platform operate from the existing infrastructure of the company, such as “legacy technology to support all of its APIs, the fundamental elements OSA Core, and our office printer”. It is stated that the minimum number (50) of masternodes for stable operation of the OSA blockchain will be covered by the organization’s “internal resources” and based on the company’s current resources, can accommodate up to 2000 masternodes. As a result, the platform is a degree of centralization, but sufficient justification for the centralized aspects are provided in the whitepaper.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A Hard cap: $40MM USD. The costs associated with product catalogue and image recognition development (39% of allocated funds) is not adequately described.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is described in the whitepaper as follows: 39% – Product catalogue and image recognition development 21% – Core product development 18% – R&D 17% – Business development 3% – Team salary and advisor fees 2% – Marketing and promotion The marketing plan is adequately described with a funding-based roadmap. However, other aspects of the use of funds is not described in nearly as much detail.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented as follows: 22.5% – TOKEN SALE (Public) 22.5% – Product Development Fund 17% – Partners & Advisors 15% – Team and Early Backers 6% – Retail Incentive 3% – Data Science Community Incentive 3% – R&D Incentive 3% – Legal and Finance 2% – Bounty 6% – Secure Fund & Vesting Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and unsold tokens will be burned. Community token allocation is low.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: A number of documents are provided through the company website: the whitepaper, a fact sheet, an information memorandum and the terms and conditions of the platform/token. The token contracts are publicly available on the company GitHub page. The technology plan is not thoroughly discussed (the organization plans to integrate machine learning and automate most of the platform). The business plan lacks some details regarding the fee structure. Details regarding the company and the team are presented clearly. Legal content is professional and fairly thorough.

Readability: The whitepaper is well-written and organized. Information is presented clearly without deliberate obfuscation with the use of buzzwords or technical terms.

Transparency: The details of the token sale and fee structure of the platform are not clearly outlined. The token bonus structure contains contradictory information and may mislead readers. Limitations of the platform and challenges that the company faces are not sufficiently discussed. The organization provides a self-assessment in the MVP section of the company website. Here, it can be seen that some details of the assessment are provided which are not discussed adequately in the whitepaper, such as the company’s plan to develop an off-chain voting system as well as the discussion regarding the legal uncertainty of the legal status of crypto-related rating sites.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: An overview of the business model is presented in the whitepaper. There are three primary revenue streams: − a one-time ICO rating fee, − a quarterly post-ICO rating listing fee, and − a quarterly user account charge to access detailed information of the analyses Specific fee structure is not outlined. It is stated that token holders will receive dividends, but the level of information regarding the amount (or proportion relative to revenue) of dividends that the token holder can expect to receive is low.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Although the platform does not seem demanding from a technological development perspective, there seems to be a lack of discussion regarding some aspects of the platform that the organization intends to implement. For example, the voting mechanism is revealed to be based off of an off-chain according to the self-assessment that can be found in the MVP. However, this detail is not stated elsewhere. Furthermore, future developments including machine learning integration are not discussed beyond milestones on the roadmap.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a document that discussed the terms and conditions of the token offering which can be found through the company website. The document is 7 pages long and is fairly comprehensive. Residents from the United States of America are not permitted to participate in the token sale. Risk factors of the platform, token, and token sale are discussed fairly thoroughly and a disclaimer is included towards the end of the whitepaper. Overall, legal content is professionally written and fairly comprehensive.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient information provided.
Readability

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very difficult to understand.
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information; discussion is brief or very basic, or based on unfounded claims or promises.
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:
2.2

Product

Differentiation: The platform aims to provide a more “holistic prediction and analysis” by combining various data sources and directs action using alerts. The platform monitors the supply chain in it’s entirety, including the last element of the supply chain (the store shelf).

Readiness: OSA has launched the OSA Hybrid Platform (OSA HP) in 2016, a platform that manages real-time optimal product shelf availability using AI, and ran in 41 retail stores and manufacturers including Mars, L’Oreal, DANONE, EFES, and JTI.

Concreteness of Development Plans: April 2015
– Team formation
June 2015
– Product concept developed
July 2015
– Product concept test (MVP)
October 2015
– Beta version introduced
November 2015
– Data integration and test started

February 2016
– New machine learning protocol tested
March 2016
– Product updated, OSA technical architecture introduced
June 2016
– Internal proof of concept (POC) approved
July 2016
– Machine learning models updated
August 2016
– External POC tested
November 2016
– POC finished: 5.4% sales growth for our partner companies
December 2016
– Image recognition POC introduced

March 2017
– Image recognition POC tested
April 2017
– Machine learning models upgraded
July 2017
– New UI/UX solution introduced
September 2017
– New big data architecture development begins
October 2017
– Integration with transaction data operators
November 2017
– Master data catalogue tested
December 2017
– Image recognition model developed for 300 products (in partnership with Neuromation)

January 2018
– New big data architecture introduced
– Master data catalogue tests
February 2018
– Machine learning model enhancement
May 2018
– Blockchain & smart contracts development (stage 1)
– Blockchain testing
June 2018
– Image Recognition model development for the next 1000 products
– Master data catalogue development
October 2018
– OSA mobile app development
– Consumer app development and blockchain development (stage 2: entire supply chain implementation)
November 2018
– Develop the platform for the entire supply chain IT, ML, and IoT functionalities
December 2018
– Image recognition model development and functionality enhancement
– Machine learning model enhancement
– Product rating system development
– AR functionality development; blockchain development (stage 3: decentralization)

March 2019
– AR & ML functionality enhancement
April 2019
– OSA Hybrid Platform upgrade
August 2019
– OSA Decentralized platform development and implementation
December 2019
– Product tracebility development
– New functionalities for machine learning processes (automated promos, assortment, pricing, recommendations)

The roadmap is fairly comprehensive and has fairly wide timespan. Furthermore, OSA provides a funding-based roadmap and roadmap that outlines the marketing strategy after the conclusion of the token sale towards the end of the document. Overall, there is a large number of milestones. However, more details could be provided for some milestones that are “upgrades” or “enhancements”.

Current Position within Roadmap: According to the roadmap the organization has had some particularly notable technical and business-related achievements due to the development of the existing platform (OSA Hybrid Platform). There is much technical development that needs to be done with regards to the machine learning, image recognition, and blockchain integration.

Feasiblity: Non-blockchain related milestones seem reasonable (although some milestones are somewhat vague). However, it is stated that smart contract and blockchain development was planned for May 2018. Based on the information presented on the company GitHub page, blockchain-related developments have been minimal. Thus, the goal to have the entire supply chain integrated into the blockchain solution by October 2018 seems fairly ambitious.

Blockchain Innovation: It is not evident that OSA is providing value to other projects from a blockchain technology perspective. The organization is simply using blockchain technology to attempt to enhance an existing product.

 

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some; has a certain edge or angle.
Readiness

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout of full product; Traditional platform exists, blockchain integration in testing or proof-of-concept.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Down to earth. Milestones sufficiently detailed and correlated with business and technology development plans.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
2.8

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the product are consumers, retailers, and manufacturers. As a result, the demographic for the platform is the mass market.

Market Penetration Potential: There are a significant number of projects aiming to alleviate some of the issues that exist within supply chain systems. As a result, OSA will have difficulty competing in this sector and will require a good technical and business development strategy.

Direct Competition: Competitors are listed in the whitepaper as follows:

– Blue Yonder
– AIPoly
– Nextorbit
– Ambrosus
– INS
– Lokad
– Provenance.org
– Radiostud.io
– IBM Blockchain for food safety
– Origintrail.io
– Mojix
– Retail robotics & Blockchain
– Splice Machine

Solution Advantage: The most evident advantage of the platform is the success of the existing platform and business network. It is stated that the OSA Hybrid Platform has operated in “41 retail stores and manufacturers including Mars, L’Oreal, DANONE, EFES, and JTI”. Beyond the existing development of OSA Hybrid Platform, the solution aims to gain an advantage over similar solutions by utilizing a much wider set of data which will inform users of the status of products based on nearly every step of the supply chain.

Blockchain Disruption: The implementation of blockchain technology alleviates two issues which are listed in the whitepaper: trust in product composition/ingredients and trust in product storage and handling. With the implementation of blockchain technology, the potential for disruption in supply chain systems is evident.

Long-Term Vision: The organization provides fairly comprehensive roadmaps (funding-based, marketing-based, and timeline-based). The organization plans to further develop their existing product and compete with other supply chain solutions.

 

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...

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate, a good strategy is essential.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Many / much better competitors (e.g., over 10, most further ahead). Overabundance of blockchain solutions flooding the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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:
3.2

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: OSA Decentralized Limited is an existing business that was established in 2015 and is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. It is stated that role of E.E.C. EXTRA ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION LIMITED is to “develop, operate and maintain the OSA platform”. It is stated that the OS Hybrid Platform has generated over $1MM in revenue since its launch in 2016 and that contributors have donated $4.2MM for the development and deployment of the platform.

Team Assembly and Commitment: Team profiles are included on the company website along with short bio descriptions. The executive team is fairly large, with over 80 team members and 16 advisors. Multiple lead team members are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations and the level of information presented on their LinkedIn profiles is lacking for the most part.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: LinkedIn profiles are provided for most team members on the company website. Using a sample size of 10 lead team members, most show involvement with OSA and provide information regarding prior work experience.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most individuals with a technical background were/are working with the OCA Hybrid Platform. It is not evident that the team has had significant experience with blockchain-related development. However, individuals with business-related development are well suited to project requirements.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The team skill set is skewed towards business development. There are a fair number of individuals with a technical position on the team (approximately 10). However, it is not evident that these individuals have had extensive blockchain-related development experience.

Strategic Partnerships: It is stated that OSA has a “close partnership with ECR organization that unites more than 70 leading manufacturers and retailers”. It is stated that the the OSA Hybrid Platform serves a number of manufacturers which include (but are not limited to):
– Mars
– L’Oreal
– DANONE
– EFES
– JTI

Furthermore, it is stated that the organization is partnered with Ambrosus. However, the details regarding the “partnership” is unclear.

 

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).

5.0
N/A
5 - Well established, has raised significant funds.
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)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Sufficently assembled and committed.
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..."]).

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Strategic Partnerships

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

5.0
N/A
5 - Large-scale, well-known enterprises.
Company and Team Score:
3.8

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: It is stated that new vendors that join the platform will have to pay using OSA coins. OSA tokens are also vested to establish proof-of-importance for masternodes. The following are OSA platform fees which include (but are not limited to): – OSA team remuneration – Compensation for masternode operators – OSA infrastructure fee – Compensation for our technology partners – Compensation for data providers Tokens will be required for vendors to access the platform.

Token Economy: The number of tokens is based on the ETH to USD exchange rate at the time of the whitepaper publication and the hard cap of $40MM USD. As such the total number of tokens issued is 2,285,714,285. It is explicitly stated that OSA has “intentionally chosen to refrain from listing exact percentages for each of OSA’s platform fees” due to the possibility of establishing major partnerships that would create substantial value for customers. This justification is quite weak and a preliminary assessment of platform fees should be included in the document. Another weak justification is included in the document, which states that the cost of cloud storage and cloud computing services might decrease “as storage technology, microprocessors, and core computational applications become increasing advanced and cost-efficient”, thus an assessment on costs is not required. This is an insufficient justification, as projections always have an element of uncertainty. Reasonable estimates (along with an adequate discussion of relevant assumptions) should be provided.

System Decentralization (besides token): Various aspects of the platform operate from the existing infrastructure of the company, such as “legacy technology to support all of its APIs, the fundamental elements OSA Core, and our office printer”. It is stated that the minimum number (50) of masternodes for stable operation of the OSA blockchain will be covered by the organization’s “internal resources” and based on the company’s current resources, can accommodate up to 2000 masternodes. As a result, the platform is a degree of centralization, but sufficient justification for the centralized aspects are provided in the whitepaper.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: N/A Hard cap: $40MM USD. The costs associated with product catalogue and image recognition development (39% of allocated funds) is not adequately described.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is described in the whitepaper as follows: 39% – Product catalogue and image recognition development 21% – Core product development 18% – R&D 17% – Business development 3% – Team salary and advisor fees 2% – Marketing and promotion The marketing plan is adequately described with a funding-based roadmap. However, other aspects of the use of funds is not described in nearly as much detail.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented as follows: 22.5% – TOKEN SALE (Public) 22.5% – Product Development Fund 17% – Partners & Advisors 15% – Team and Early Backers 6% – Retail Incentive 3% – Data Science Community Incentive 3% – R&D Incentive 3% – Legal and Finance 2% – Bounty 6% – Secure Fund & Vesting Vesting periods are not clearly outlined and unsold tokens will be burned. Community token allocation is low.

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; use of decentralized / centralized components is broadly justified; decentralization not a core aspect.
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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
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:
2.5

Use this code to share the ratings on your website