SUBAJ

A marketplace where merchants can create crypto tokens and offer them to their customers as loyalty rewards within the platform.

About SUBAJ

SUBAJ Global Network is a platform that allows merchants to create their own loyalty tokens. A portion of the loyalty rewards that consumers earn are allocated to the SUBAJ Foundation, intends to use the funds for “various projects for homeless and deprived children of the world”. The platform will also consist of an exchange which will allow users to trade loyalty tokens that are on the SUBAJ platform. SBK tokens will be used as a means of exchange for all services that are on the SUBAJ network.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.2
Documentation
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; little or no technical discussion.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement fairly briefly. The justification for the platform from the perspective of the customer and the merchant is discussed. Some of the rationale for the platform is questionable. For example, some of the problems faced by merchants include:
– They have a poor mode of communication with the customers
– They don’t have a mobile strategy to attract new customers

Some statistics and data regarding market research are presented without reference to the source of the information. Technical content is lacking. Business-related content is available, but lacks specific detail. The company GitHub page is not available. Information on the team is limited. Legal content is minimal.

Readability: The whitepaper is easy to read but is quite repetitive and redundant.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not discussed sufficiently. A comparison between potential competitors is not discussed thoroughly. Potential challenges are not addressed in detail.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model of the platform is not sufficiently discussed. It is stated that revenue will be generated from four major components of the platform:

– Augmented Reality (AR)
– Pokemon Go Concept
– Social Gamification
– GeoDrop Technology

The marketing strategy is also discussed and states that revenue will be generated from 7 major stream of income:

– Merchant packages
– Business tokens
– Brokerage transaction fees
– In app/online advertising fees
– Fiat transaction processing fees
– SBP analytics fees
– SGN sales kit fees

When customers receive loyalty rewards, it is stated that a “certain amount” of tokens also goes to the SUBAJ Charity Foundation. Specific details are not outlined. A broad overview of the business development plan and revenue strategy is outlined but specific details with regards to fee structure is not presented.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical content is essentially nonexistent.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is minimal legal content presented on the company website and the whitepaper.

 

Documentation Market

Product

2.0
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
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: GeoDrop is a feature of the platform which allows merchants to inform consumers in their vicinity of discounts, offers, and opportunities to gain loyalty rewards.

Merchants will be able to develop 6 different kinds of tokens:

– Gift tokens
– Voucher tokens
– Travel tokens
– Hot offers tokens
– Loyalty tokens
– Prepaid tokens

Readiness: It seems as though the project is primarily an idea. A demonstration of the product, links to the company GitHub page, or any other publicly available content that would indicate the has reached notable technical milestones is not available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

2010
– Vision of global commerce reward platform
2013
– Launch of mobile commerce digital reward currency platform
2016
– IPO launch of mobile commerce company at Paris Stock Exchange market
2017
– FinTech & Blockchain strategy for Shopping and Reward Industry
2018
– Project SUBAJ GLOBAL NETWORK
June to July 2018
– Token sale
November 2018
– Subaj coin development and listing
December 2018
– Exchange & wallet app
June 2019
– Marketplace, POS
July 2019
– Go live, full international deployment

There is a lack of technically focused milestones, especially considering the scope of the project and what it aims to achieve to implement (augmented reality, artificial intelligence, business intelligence, etc).

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, based on the roadmap, the has critical obstacles ahead including the development of the exchange and wallet, as well as the marketplace and POS solutions.

Feasiblity: Based on the fact that it seems the organization has yet to achieve any notable technical milestones, the goal to have a working exchange in December 2018 is quite ambitious. The milestone for the “Subaj coin development” in November 2018 is interesting, as the development of the token should be trivial compared to the token exchange (which the deadline is set only a month after the development of the token).

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

 

Product Company and Team

Market

1.8
Market
Target User Base

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly 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.

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.

Market

Target User Base: The target demographic for the platform is uncertain. It is stated in the whitepaper that the network consists of “Hotels, Sports Clubs, Shopping Malls, Event Organizing Agencies, Cab Services, Beauty and Cosmetic brands, Cinema Franchises, Retail Store chains and Aviation Companies, etc both online and offline”. The platform is targeted towards merchants and consumers.

Market Penetration Potential: There is a large number of blockchain-focused projects aiming to developing a loyalty program powered by cryptocurrency. As a result, the potential for market penetration seems unlikely considering that the project does not seem to have notable features compared to similar projects.

Direct Competition: There are a large number of blockchain-focused projects that aim to provide a token-powered loyalty program. Potential competitors include:

– BitRewards
– Nexxus
– Rakuten
– Ovato
– EsperanToken
– OnePlusOne
– LoyalCoin
– EZToken
– Retainly
– MB8 Coin

Solution Advantage: The platform will utilize GeoDrop, which “spatially filters and defines patterns of communications with the customers based on their preferences and proximity”. This allows location-based communication/advertising on the platform. Furthermore, the platform allows merchants to develop their own custom tokens. These advantages are fairly weak compared to leading projects in the sector.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for disruption with loyalty rewards programs by allowing merchants to develop their own tokens on a platform with a corresponding exchange is fairly weak. The benefits of doing so are not adequately discussed in the whitepaper.

Long-Term Vision: It seems as though the organization is developing the platform in order to capitalize on the exuberance surrounding cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. The benefits of the platform are indeterminate and major features of the platform that are said to be implemented (augmented reality, artificial intelligence, etc) are discussed as such a basic level that it gives the impression that the organization is simply stating them in the whitepaper to impress readers without much thought into how it will be implemented into the ecosystem.

 

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.2
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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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.

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - A couple of partnerships connected to founders or advisors.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Easily accessible information on the company is limited. According to the company LinekdIn page, the organization is based in Bremen and was founded in 2018. The organization has hired Oodles Technologies as a technical subcontractor to implement blockchain technology into the platform.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team of 16 core team members along with 2 advisors are presented on the company website. The team structure is as follows:

Adebayo Surakatu | Founder & CEO
Knut Jacobi | Board Member & Advisor
Igor Pobirajko | ICO Project Manager
Dr Mohamed Karim | Chief Financial Advisor
Antony Kozlov | Corporate Legal
Kateryna Pozd | Marketing & Social Media
Sergey Iaremenko | Automation and computer-integrated technologies
Radchuk Mykhailo | UX/UI Developer & Analyst
Aliona Balatsanova | Project Manager
Rudenko Svitlana | IT Network & Systems Manager
Yevheniia Hlushchenko | SMM and Customer Care specialist
Abhimanyu Kumar | Project Manager
Rishabh Anand | Growth Hacker
Saurabh Singla | Business Developer
Kashif Syed | Merchant Community Manager
Ankush Gupta | Chief Marketing Officer

Shabaz Ahmed | ICO Advisor, FinTech Europe / MENA Region
Apoorv Gupta | ICO Advisor

Furthermore, the technical team is subcontracted to a software development company, Oodles Technologies, which according to their LinkedIn page, have over 250 employees and specialize in “Blockchain, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, ERP, Big Data and Live Video Streaming”.

The CEO is concurrently involved with another blockchain-related project (TelKash Group Ltd). The board member’s LinkedIn profile is not available. A lot of the team members are concurrently involved with MiRAK-ICO, an ICO agency, of which the CFO of this project founded. Many team members are also involved with Almora, an firm that is “assisting blockchain focused companies in running successful token sales”, according to the company website. As a result, overall team commitment to the project is questionable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Most team members, with the exception of the CEO, CFO, and the Project Manger contain little to no content on their LinkedIn profiles. For the most part team members simply list the organizations that they are currently involved with or have worked with in the past.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Key team members have worked on blockchain-related projects. However the relevance of previous/concurrent projects is uncertain. Furthermore, the relevance of most team member’s previous experience cannot be adequately assessed based on the lack of information presented on the team member’s LinkedIn profiles.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Most team members on the core development team have skills that align more closely to business development. The (blockchain) technical development team is subcontracted to Oodles Technologies, a company that have operated since 2009 and has over 250 employees (according to the company LinkedIn page). It is uncertain if Oodles Technologies has received significant levels of investment funding.

Strategic Partnerships: In the whitepaper there are vague statements that the organization is “in talks” with leading marketing groups and reward companies. However, specific details are not outlined. Notable partnerships are not evident.

 

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.0
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?

N.0
N/A
N/A
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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 each cryptocurrency on the SUBAJ Global Network will be backed by SUBAJ Tokens (SBJ). SBJ tokens will be able to be used for products/services offered on the SUBAJ Global Network.

Token Economy: Total supply: 5 billion SBJ

Critical aspects of the token economy are not discussed in sufficient detail. For example, the proportion of the rewards that are transferred to the SUBAJ Foundation is not specifically outlined. The fee structure of the different revenue streams outlined in the whitepaper are not discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): It does not appear that token holders have significant voting rights. The governance structure of the organization/platform are not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper. Technical aspects are discussed at a basic level, thus it is uncertain whether the infrastructure that is used to operate the token exchange will be done so in a decentralized manner.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $5MM USD
Hard cap: $70MM USD

The hard cap is quite high and seems unrelated to development plans. The use of proceeds is not clearly presented in a manner that justifies the raise amounts.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not adequately outlined in the whitepaper.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

50% – Public token sale
15% – SUBAJ foundation
13% – Customers and merchants
12% – Sold through SUBAJ app
10% – Advisors and partners

Vesting schedules are not clearly presented and it is uncertain whether unsold tokens will be burned.

 

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The problem statement fairly briefly. The justification for the platform from the perspective of the customer and the merchant is discussed. Some of the rationale for the platform is questionable. For example, some of the problems faced by merchants include:
– They have a poor mode of communication with the customers
– They don’t have a mobile strategy to attract new customers

Some statistics and data regarding market research are presented without reference to the source of the information. Technical content is lacking. Business-related content is available, but lacks specific detail. The company GitHub page is not available. Information on the team is limited. Legal content is minimal.

Readability: The whitepaper is easy to read but is quite repetitive and redundant.

Transparency: The current stage of development is not discussed sufficiently. A comparison between potential competitors is not discussed thoroughly. Potential challenges are not addressed in detail.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business model of the platform is not sufficiently discussed. It is stated that revenue will be generated from four major components of the platform:

– Augmented Reality (AR)
– Pokemon Go Concept
– Social Gamification
– GeoDrop Technology

The marketing strategy is also discussed and states that revenue will be generated from 7 major stream of income:

– Merchant packages
– Business tokens
– Brokerage transaction fees
– In app/online advertising fees
– Fiat transaction processing fees
– SBP analytics fees
– SGN sales kit fees

When customers receive loyalty rewards, it is stated that a “certain amount” of tokens also goes to the SUBAJ Charity Foundation. Specific details are not outlined. A broad overview of the business development plan and revenue strategy is outlined but specific details with regards to fee structure is not presented.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical content is essentially nonexistent.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is minimal legal content presented on the company website and the whitepaper.

 

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Very limited information.
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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking; little or no technical discussion.
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)?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Documentation Score:
2.2

Product

Differentiation: GeoDrop is a feature of the platform which allows merchants to inform consumers in their vicinity of discounts, offers, and opportunities to gain loyalty rewards.

Merchants will be able to develop 6 different kinds of tokens:

– Gift tokens
– Voucher tokens
– Travel tokens
– Hot offers tokens
– Loyalty tokens
– Prepaid tokens

Readiness: It seems as though the project is primarily an idea. A demonstration of the product, links to the company GitHub page, or any other publicly available content that would indicate the has reached notable technical milestones is not available.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

2010
– Vision of global commerce reward platform
2013
– Launch of mobile commerce digital reward currency platform
2016
– IPO launch of mobile commerce company at Paris Stock Exchange market
2017
– FinTech & Blockchain strategy for Shopping and Reward Industry
2018
– Project SUBAJ GLOBAL NETWORK
June to July 2018
– Token sale
November 2018
– Subaj coin development and listing
December 2018
– Exchange & wallet app
June 2019
– Marketplace, POS
July 2019
– Go live, full international deployment

There is a lack of technically focused milestones, especially considering the scope of the project and what it aims to achieve to implement (augmented reality, artificial intelligence, business intelligence, etc).

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, based on the roadmap, the has critical obstacles ahead including the development of the exchange and wallet, as well as the marketplace and POS solutions.

Feasiblity: Based on the fact that it seems the organization has yet to achieve any notable technical milestones, the goal to have a working exchange in December 2018 is quite ambitious. The milestone for the “Subaj coin development” in November 2018 is interesting, as the development of the token should be trivial compared to the token exchange (which the deadline is set only a month after the development of the token).

Blockchain Innovation: The platform does not provide innovation from a blockchain technology perspective.

 

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived, unconvincing.
Readiness

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea, for the product as a whole.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague and noncommittal, few milestones with few details provided.
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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
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:
2.0

Market

Target User Base: The target demographic for the platform is uncertain. It is stated in the whitepaper that the network consists of “Hotels, Sports Clubs, Shopping Malls, Event Organizing Agencies, Cab Services, Beauty and Cosmetic brands, Cinema Franchises, Retail Store chains and Aviation Companies, etc both online and offline”. The platform is targeted towards merchants and consumers.

Market Penetration Potential: There is a large number of blockchain-focused projects aiming to developing a loyalty program powered by cryptocurrency. As a result, the potential for market penetration seems unlikely considering that the project does not seem to have notable features compared to similar projects.

Direct Competition: There are a large number of blockchain-focused projects that aim to provide a token-powered loyalty program. Potential competitors include:

– BitRewards
– Nexxus
– Rakuten
– Ovato
– EsperanToken
– OnePlusOne
– LoyalCoin
– EZToken
– Retainly
– MB8 Coin

Solution Advantage: The platform will utilize GeoDrop, which “spatially filters and defines patterns of communications with the customers based on their preferences and proximity”. This allows location-based communication/advertising on the platform. Furthermore, the platform allows merchants to develop their own custom tokens. These advantages are fairly weak compared to leading projects in the sector.

Blockchain Disruption: The potential for disruption with loyalty rewards programs by allowing merchants to develop their own tokens on a platform with a corresponding exchange is fairly weak. The benefits of doing so are not adequately discussed in the whitepaper.

Long-Term Vision: It seems as though the organization is developing the platform in order to capitalize on the exuberance surrounding cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. The benefits of the platform are indeterminate and major features of the platform that are said to be implemented (augmented reality, artificial intelligence, etc) are discussed as such a basic level that it gives the impression that the organization is simply stating them in the whitepaper to impress readers without much thought into how it will be implemented into the ecosystem.

 

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide 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...

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult, highly 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.

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Unexceptional / weak.
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.)

1.0
N/A
1 - Capitalizing on the hype around crypto. Using the ICO vehicle to raise funds for a project with very limited scope or no viability.
Market Score:
1.8

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Easily accessible information on the company is limited. According to the company LinekdIn page, the organization is based in Bremen and was founded in 2018. The organization has hired Oodles Technologies as a technical subcontractor to implement blockchain technology into the platform.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The team of 16 core team members along with 2 advisors are presented on the company website. The team structure is as follows:

Adebayo Surakatu | Founder & CEO
Knut Jacobi | Board Member & Advisor
Igor Pobirajko | ICO Project Manager
Dr Mohamed Karim | Chief Financial Advisor
Antony Kozlov | Corporate Legal
Kateryna Pozd | Marketing & Social Media
Sergey Iaremenko | Automation and computer-integrated technologies
Radchuk Mykhailo | UX/UI Developer & Analyst
Aliona Balatsanova | Project Manager
Rudenko Svitlana | IT Network & Systems Manager
Yevheniia Hlushchenko | SMM and Customer Care specialist
Abhimanyu Kumar | Project Manager
Rishabh Anand | Growth Hacker
Saurabh Singla | Business Developer
Kashif Syed | Merchant Community Manager
Ankush Gupta | Chief Marketing Officer

Shabaz Ahmed | ICO Advisor, FinTech Europe / MENA Region
Apoorv Gupta | ICO Advisor

Furthermore, the technical team is subcontracted to a software development company, Oodles Technologies, which according to their LinkedIn page, have over 250 employees and specialize in “Blockchain, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, ERP, Big Data and Live Video Streaming”.

The CEO is concurrently involved with another blockchain-related project (TelKash Group Ltd). The board member’s LinkedIn profile is not available. A lot of the team members are concurrently involved with MiRAK-ICO, an ICO agency, of which the CFO of this project founded. Many team members are also involved with Almora, an firm that is “assisting blockchain focused companies in running successful token sales”, according to the company website. As a result, overall team commitment to the project is questionable.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: Most team members, with the exception of the CEO, CFO, and the Project Manger contain little to no content on their LinkedIn profiles. For the most part team members simply list the organizations that they are currently involved with or have worked with in the past.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Key team members have worked on blockchain-related projects. However the relevance of previous/concurrent projects is uncertain. Furthermore, the relevance of most team member’s previous experience cannot be adequately assessed based on the lack of information presented on the team member’s LinkedIn profiles.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): Most team members on the core development team have skills that align more closely to business development. The (blockchain) technical development team is subcontracted to Oodles Technologies, a company that have operated since 2009 and has over 250 employees (according to the company LinkedIn page). It is uncertain if Oodles Technologies has received significant levels of investment funding.

Strategic Partnerships: In the whitepaper there are vague statements that the organization is “in talks” with leading marketing groups and reward companies. However, specific details are not outlined. Notable partnerships 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).

2.0
N/A
2 - Initial stages of formation.
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.

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

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

2.0
N/A
2 - A couple of partnerships connected to founders or advisors.
Company and Team Score:
2.2

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: It is stated that each cryptocurrency on the SUBAJ Global Network will be backed by SUBAJ Tokens (SBJ). SBJ tokens will be able to be used for products/services offered on the SUBAJ Global Network.

Token Economy: Total supply: 5 billion SBJ

Critical aspects of the token economy are not discussed in sufficient detail. For example, the proportion of the rewards that are transferred to the SUBAJ Foundation is not specifically outlined. The fee structure of the different revenue streams outlined in the whitepaper are not discussed.

System Decentralization (besides token): It does not appear that token holders have significant voting rights. The governance structure of the organization/platform are not discussed thoroughly in the whitepaper. Technical aspects are discussed at a basic level, thus it is uncertain whether the infrastructure that is used to operate the token exchange will be done so in a decentralized manner.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: $5MM USD
Hard cap: $70MM USD

The hard cap is quite high and seems unrelated to development plans. The use of proceeds is not clearly presented in a manner that justifies the raise amounts.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not adequately outlined in the whitepaper.

Token Allocation: Token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:

50% – Public token sale
15% – SUBAJ foundation
13% – Customers and merchants
12% – Sold through SUBAJ app
10% – Advisors and partners

Vesting schedules are not clearly presented and it is uncertain 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?

N.0
N/A
N/A
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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some vague plans to decentralize, or decentralization treated more as trend than as a paradigm shift.
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).

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation)

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

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
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:
2.0

Use this code to share the ratings on your website