Ubex

Artificial Intelligence in Advertising

About Ubex

Ubex is a platform that aims to develop an advertising platform that will enable users to tokenize ad slots while using neural network systems in order to optimize ad placement and ad content based on information shared collected and shared (with compensation) by users. UBEX tokens are used as payment within the Ubex ecosystem.

Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.7
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.

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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Appearing to misinform or deliberately obfuscate critical information. Hiding the real nature or state of the project.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The company website include the following documents: the whitepaper, a two-page summary, and a document that outlines the token economics of the platform. The technology and business development plan is discussed only briefly, as the majority of the document focuses on discussing market research. The company GitHub page is publicly available and contains repositories for the token smart contracts and the “”Simple REST API”” for the crowdsale. Team information is clearly presented along with corresponding LinkedIn profiles. Legal content is present and fairly thorough.

Readability: The whitepaper is fairly simple to read, although various sections read like a marketing brochure as opposed to an informative document.

Transparency: The assessment on the current market landscape does not seem transparent. Generalizations are included in the whitepaper. For example, it is stated that “”the currently available algorithms for selecting advertising, overload the audience with inappropriate advertising, thereby contributing very little to the preservation of advertising traffic for publishers and, accordingly, their profitability””.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan is described with low levels of detail. The majority of the whitepaper focuses on discussing the current market landscape with respect to advertising platforms as opposed to the organization’s specific business development plan. The token model lacks detail, specifically with regards to fee structure. Use of proceeds is not adequately described. During the initial stages of development, marketing of the platform will be targeted towards European and Asian markets.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical details of the platform are limited to a somewhat generic and simplistic discussion of how neural networks work. Specific details with respect to technical implementation are lacking. When the platform is released, data will be collected from a variety of sources including user contribution, partners, and from purchased data sets.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a table toward the end of the document that outlines the risk factors associated with the platform. Residents from The United States of America, Iran and North Korea are not permitted to participate in the token offering. Legal considerations are included towards the end of the whitepaper which span approximately 3 pages. Furthermore, the Howey Test is specifically discussed and the features of the platform are assessed in order to determine whether the token is a security.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
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?

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

Product

Differentiation: The organization intends to differentiate itself from competitors by developing smart contracts which will be able to track user activity and develop neural networks which will optimize ad placement and ad content while allowing publishers to tokenize ad space and compensate users for contributing data.

Readiness: There are currently some developments (primarily token smart contracts) that are publicly available on GitHub. A working prototype is available on the company website.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented in the whitepaper is presented as follows: Q4 2016 – Creation of an advertising platform for promoting Payday Loans Q1 2017 – Development of integration tools to link marketing campaigns with publishers’ websites Q3 2017 – Introduction of an API interface for use by publishers to register advertising space Q4 2017 – Addition of new types of advertising tools and customization of widgets Q1 2018 – Introduction of advertiser auctions April 2018 – Development of the exchange smart contract prototype for the storage of basic information May 2018 – Launch of the desktop and mobile Alpha versions of the Advertiser application August 2018 – Launch of the desktop and mobile Alpha versions of the Publisher application October 2018 – Development of the system’s neural core prototype and initial training of the neural networks November 2018 – Introduction of smart contracts capable of storing neural network adjacent coefficients in the blockchain December 2018 – Introduction of an API prototype for sharing training data in exchange for rewards (data mining) January 2019 – Launch of the Beta versions of Advertiser and Publisher applications March 2019 – Release of the initial versions of operational applications and smart contracts Overall milestones are listed with a focus on technical developments. Sufficient details are provided.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most milestones reached thus far been conceptual. Some repositories can be found on the company GitHub page, but the level of progress (based on what is publicly available) is much lower than expected when assessing the roadmap. Significant milestones are still ahead.

Feasiblity: At the time of review (June 2018), the deadline for a number of milestones were not reached. For example, it is stated that by May 2018, the organization planned to launch the alpha version of the desktop and mobile application, which is still not available. Thus, when considering future milestones, the goal to accomplish much more sophisticated and complex milestones, such as the development of the neural core, the feasibility of the organization accomplishing those milestones within the specified deadline is questionable.

Blockchain Innovation: Ubex does not seem to provide value from a blockchain technology perspective. The platform simply intends to develop a platform/service on top of the Ethereum blockchain.

Product Company and Team

Market

1.7
Market
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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 user base for the platform are primarily advertisers and publishers. As such, the demographic of the platform is quite limited compared to other projects that have a much broader scope.

Market Penetration Potential: The potential for market penetration seems low. A major assumption mentioned in the whitepaper states that targeted advertising often times provide irrelevant ads. This is surely not the case and large well-known corporations have neural networks that have been trained on data sets much larger than what Ubex has access to. As a result, the potential to create a effectively compete with existing solutions (based on the description of the product) seems quite low.

Direct Competition: Advertising platforms that leverage blockchain technology include (but are not limited to): – Basic Attention Token – AdEx – MetaX – CNW – AdRealm – Papyrus – Qchain – AdHive – AdEx – Native Video Box

Solution Advantage: It is not clear that the platform has a major advantage when assessing potential competitors. The use of neural networks, an escrow service, and tokenization of ad space are all aspects that are well explored within the realm of blockchain-backed projects.

Blockchain Disruption: It is not evident that the implementation of blockchain technology (as described by the platform) has significant potential for disruption. Blockchain technology will surely have an impact on the advertising sector, but the manner in which Ubex plans to implement the technology is questionable.

Long-Term Vision: Based on the roadmap, the organization intends to develop a product that will provide some benefit when compared to a limited set of competitors but it is unclear how the organization intends to effectively compete with stronger competitors with existing neural network systems.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.3
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly 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..."]).

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?

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.

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: Information Ubex as a company is not easily accessible. According to the organization’s LinkedIn page, Ubex is a privately held company stationed in Zug and was founded in 2018. The organization has received funding via pre-sale or private sale.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 13 individuals are listed in the whitepaper along with 4 advisors. There are 2 co-founders and approximately 5 individuals a clear technical development position. The rest of the team members have positions that align more closely to business development. All team members show affiliation with Ubex on their LinkedIn profiles and 3/13 individuals are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: There is little to no information available regarding the current responsibilities at Ubex for nearly all lead team members (with the exception of the CTO, which has high levels of information presented regarding their responsibilities). When assessing the other individuals with a technical position, there is little to no information presented with respect to both their current roles and also prior work experiences.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: One of the co-founders has experience as a marketing director and also worked as a managing director for a different blockchain-focused project (LAToken). The other co-founder also has experience working with blockchain-focused projects such as Global Blockchain Technology Fonds, Lapo Blockchain and InsurePal. The CTO does not seem to have prior blockchain-focused development experience but clearly lists the individuals extensive responsibilities for this project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The skill set of the team seems skewed towards business development. It is not evident that the team has team members that have had extensive blockchain-related or machine learning development experience. There is a significant lack of information provided for most team members (especially those with technical positions).

Strategic Partnerships: Partners are listed on the company website, but the extent of the relationship between the partners and Ubex is unclear. It appears that the “”partnerships”” primarily consist of ICO development services and a few blockchain projects that contain no information regarding how the organizations are affiliated. Notable partners with meaningful and sizable user bases 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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).

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Based on the document outlining the token economics, “”the UBEX token will act as a payment unit on the Ubex platform””. UBEX tokens are required to access the platform (although output is stated to support multiple cryptocurrencies). UBEX token holders are not granted voting rights.

Token Economy: Total supply: 4 billion UBEX The justification for creating a token is based off of the assumption that “”basic cryptocurrencies do not allow crediting of funds from third party accounts even if one has permission from the third parties”” and to reward users for contributing data. It is stated that every yearly-quarter, the organization will use 20% of the proceeds from transaction fees in order to purchase UBEX and burn them, in order to create scarcity. The platform will utilize transaction fees but the fee structure is not clearly outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): Token holders receive no voting rights: “”Ubex do not grant their holder ownership or equity in the Company or the right to participate in the control, direction, or decision making of the Company. Individuals, businesses, and other organizations should carefully weigh the risks, costs, and benefits of acquiring UBEX Tokens””. The governance structure of the platform is not adequately discussed.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 4,000 ETH Hard cap: 24,000 ETH The use of proceeds is not adequately described in order to justify the raise amounts.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not adequately described. It is stated that most of the funds will be used for data purchasing, training of the neural network and business development.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the company website as follows: 72% – Community 15% – Team and advisors (locked for 1 year) 10% – Reserved 3% – Bounty (locked for 3 months) Unsold tokens will be burned.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The company website include the following documents: the whitepaper, a two-page summary, and a document that outlines the token economics of the platform. The technology and business development plan is discussed only briefly, as the majority of the document focuses on discussing market research. The company GitHub page is publicly available and contains repositories for the token smart contracts and the “”Simple REST API”” for the crowdsale. Team information is clearly presented along with corresponding LinkedIn profiles. Legal content is present and fairly thorough.

Readability: The whitepaper is fairly simple to read, although various sections read like a marketing brochure as opposed to an informative document.

Transparency: The assessment on the current market landscape does not seem transparent. Generalizations are included in the whitepaper. For example, it is stated that “”the currently available algorithms for selecting advertising, overload the audience with inappropriate advertising, thereby contributing very little to the preservation of advertising traffic for publishers and, accordingly, their profitability””.

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: The business plan is described with low levels of detail. The majority of the whitepaper focuses on discussing the current market landscape with respect to advertising platforms as opposed to the organization’s specific business development plan. The token model lacks detail, specifically with regards to fee structure. Use of proceeds is not adequately described. During the initial stages of development, marketing of the platform will be targeted towards European and Asian markets.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: Technical details of the platform are limited to a somewhat generic and simplistic discussion of how neural networks work. Specific details with respect to technical implementation are lacking. When the platform is released, data will be collected from a variety of sources including user contribution, partners, and from purchased data sets.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a table toward the end of the document that outlines the risk factors associated with the platform. Residents from The United States of America, Iran and North Korea are not permitted to participate in the token offering. Legal considerations are included towards the end of the whitepaper which span approximately 3 pages. Furthermore, the Howey Test is specifically discussed and the features of the platform are assessed in order to determine whether the token is a security.

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.

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.

1.0
N/A
1 - Appearing to misinform or deliberately obfuscate critical information. Hiding the real nature or state of the project.
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required. Discussion is primarily in layman terms, specifications only partly provided, or some key issues remain unaddressed.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g., includes standard disclaimer, terms and conditions, and risk factors).
Documentation Score:
2.7

Product

Differentiation: The organization intends to differentiate itself from competitors by developing smart contracts which will be able to track user activity and develop neural networks which will optimize ad placement and ad content while allowing publishers to tokenize ad space and compensate users for contributing data.

Readiness: There are currently some developments (primarily token smart contracts) that are publicly available on GitHub. A working prototype is available on the company website.

Concreteness of Development Plans: The roadmap presented in the whitepaper is presented as follows: Q4 2016 – Creation of an advertising platform for promoting Payday Loans Q1 2017 – Development of integration tools to link marketing campaigns with publishers’ websites Q3 2017 – Introduction of an API interface for use by publishers to register advertising space Q4 2017 – Addition of new types of advertising tools and customization of widgets Q1 2018 – Introduction of advertiser auctions April 2018 – Development of the exchange smart contract prototype for the storage of basic information May 2018 – Launch of the desktop and mobile Alpha versions of the Advertiser application August 2018 – Launch of the desktop and mobile Alpha versions of the Publisher application October 2018 – Development of the system’s neural core prototype and initial training of the neural networks November 2018 – Introduction of smart contracts capable of storing neural network adjacent coefficients in the blockchain December 2018 – Introduction of an API prototype for sharing training data in exchange for rewards (data mining) January 2019 – Launch of the Beta versions of Advertiser and Publisher applications March 2019 – Release of the initial versions of operational applications and smart contracts Overall milestones are listed with a focus on technical developments. Sufficient details are provided.

Current Position within Roadmap: Most milestones reached thus far been conceptual. Some repositories can be found on the company GitHub page, but the level of progress (based on what is publicly available) is much lower than expected when assessing the roadmap. Significant milestones are still ahead.

Feasiblity: At the time of review (June 2018), the deadline for a number of milestones were not reached. For example, it is stated that by May 2018, the organization planned to launch the alpha version of the desktop and mobile application, which is still not available. Thus, when considering future milestones, the goal to accomplish much more sophisticated and complex milestones, such as the development of the neural core, the feasibility of the organization accomplishing those milestones within the specified deadline is questionable.

Blockchain Innovation: Ubex does not seem to provide value from a blockchain technology perspective. The platform simply intends to develop a platform/service on top of the Ethereum blockchain.

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?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very difficult to determine. No significant distinguishing features stand out.
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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated with some relevant details.
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?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple, basic Ethereum based token (ERC20 with minimal smart contract functionality).
Product Score:
2.0

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform are primarily advertisers and publishers. As such, the demographic of the platform is quite limited compared to other projects that have a much broader scope.

Market Penetration Potential: The potential for market penetration seems low. A major assumption mentioned in the whitepaper states that targeted advertising often times provide irrelevant ads. This is surely not the case and large well-known corporations have neural networks that have been trained on data sets much larger than what Ubex has access to. As a result, the potential to create a effectively compete with existing solutions (based on the description of the product) seems quite low.

Direct Competition: Advertising platforms that leverage blockchain technology include (but are not limited to): – Basic Attention Token – AdEx – MetaX – CNW – AdRealm – Papyrus – Qchain – AdHive – AdEx – Native Video Box

Solution Advantage: It is not clear that the platform has a major advantage when assessing potential competitors. The use of neural networks, an escrow service, and tokenization of ad space are all aspects that are well explored within the realm of blockchain-backed projects.

Blockchain Disruption: It is not evident that the implementation of blockchain technology (as described by the platform) has significant potential for disruption. Blockchain technology will surely have an impact on the advertising sector, but the manner in which Ubex plans to implement the technology is questionable.

Long-Term Vision: Based on the roadmap, the organization intends to develop a product that will provide some benefit when compared to a limited set of competitors but it is unclear how the organization intends to effectively compete with stronger competitors with existing neural network systems.

Category Breakdown
Target User Base

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

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche 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.

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition (e.g., 5-7, similarly positioned). Blockchain solutions already evidently present in the sector.
Solution Advantage

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

1.0
N/A
1 - None / indeterminate.
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:
1.7

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: Information Ubex as a company is not easily accessible. According to the organization’s LinkedIn page, Ubex is a privately held company stationed in Zug and was founded in 2018. The organization has received funding via pre-sale or private sale.

Team Assembly and Commitment: The core team of 13 individuals are listed in the whitepaper along with 4 advisors. There are 2 co-founders and approximately 5 individuals a clear technical development position. The rest of the team members have positions that align more closely to business development. All team members show affiliation with Ubex on their LinkedIn profiles and 3/13 individuals are concurrently involved with other projects/organizations.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: There is little to no information available regarding the current responsibilities at Ubex for nearly all lead team members (with the exception of the CTO, which has high levels of information presented regarding their responsibilities). When assessing the other individuals with a technical position, there is little to no information presented with respect to both their current roles and also prior work experiences.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: One of the co-founders has experience as a marketing director and also worked as a managing director for a different blockchain-focused project (LAToken). The other co-founder also has experience working with blockchain-focused projects such as Global Blockchain Technology Fonds, Lapo Blockchain and InsurePal. The CTO does not seem to have prior blockchain-focused development experience but clearly lists the individuals extensive responsibilities for this project.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): The skill set of the team seems skewed towards business development. It is not evident that the team has team members that have had extensive blockchain-related or machine learning development experience. There is a significant lack of information provided for most team members (especially those with technical positions).

Strategic Partnerships: Partners are listed on the company website, but the extent of the relationship between the partners and Ubex is unclear. It appears that the “”partnerships”” primarily consist of ICO development services and a few blockchain projects that contain no information regarding how the organizations are affiliated. Notable partners with meaningful and sizable user bases 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)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly 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..."]).

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?

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.

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:
2.3

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: Based on the document outlining the token economics, “”the UBEX token will act as a payment unit on the Ubex platform””. UBEX tokens are required to access the platform (although output is stated to support multiple cryptocurrencies). UBEX token holders are not granted voting rights.

Token Economy: Total supply: 4 billion UBEX The justification for creating a token is based off of the assumption that “”basic cryptocurrencies do not allow crediting of funds from third party accounts even if one has permission from the third parties”” and to reward users for contributing data. It is stated that every yearly-quarter, the organization will use 20% of the proceeds from transaction fees in order to purchase UBEX and burn them, in order to create scarcity. The platform will utilize transaction fees but the fee structure is not clearly outlined.

System Decentralization (besides token): Token holders receive no voting rights: “”Ubex do not grant their holder ownership or equity in the Company or the right to participate in the control, direction, or decision making of the Company. Individuals, businesses, and other organizations should carefully weigh the risks, costs, and benefits of acquiring UBEX Tokens””. The governance structure of the platform is not adequately discussed.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): Soft cap: 4,000 ETH Hard cap: 24,000 ETH The use of proceeds is not adequately described in order to justify the raise amounts.

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is not adequately described. It is stated that most of the funds will be used for data purchasing, training of the neural network and business development.

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented on the company website as follows: 72% – Community 15% – Team and advisors (locked for 1 year) 10% – Reserved 3% – Bounty (locked for 3 months) 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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Limited or uncertain; some risk with regard to actual value, but issuing a custom token is justifiable.
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).

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.)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Most tokens sold, vesting periods on kept tokens.
Token Economics Score:
2.7
With respect to the ability to "monetization systems for advertising slots", how does Ubex compare to existing services/plugins such as AdRotate or what Google is currently doing with ad placements?

The difference with Ubex is that we reward our users for participation in the improvement of our platform in addition to offering them a fair exchange of services with instant payouts and maximum efficiency in matching offers. Additionally to that publishers can use the tokenization of the ad slots to receive the tokens in advance and enjoy the potential appreciation of the currency.

Is Ubex investigating scaling strategies? If so, what solutions are being investigated?

Scaling strategies can only be discussed and explored after we start accumulating participants on the platform. If their number exceeds the platform’s capacities, we will certainly take appropriate measures to ensure uninterrupted operations. First we need to become the best in the World on small scale and later start the growth, not vis-a-versa.

It is stated that "training the system core to obtain relevant and accurate forecasts is a laborious process". When the platform initially rolls out, what data sets will be used to train the system?

We will be inviting our participants to contribute their data sets so our system may rely on them as a start. The more participants, the more data sets we will have.We have a special data-mining mechanism for publishers for it. Additionally we use the data provided by our partners and buy it on open market.

What partner websites are currently on the Ubex network?

Through our partnership in programmatic we have access to over 2000 publishers now and plan to increase it tenfold in the coming month.

Clarify the use of proceeds in quantitative terms, if possible.

We have not yet ended our token sale to be able to discuss the use of proceeds, as we do not know how much we will raise in the end. Most of the funds will be used for data purchasing, training of the neural network and business development.

What is the marketing/business development plan after the ICO?

The plan is develop the platform and start negotiations with advertising partners to attract them to using our product. The product will be the main focus of our team along with its promotion to relevant channels and parties. We shall focus on European and Asian markets (Korea, Hong Kong) and start the attraction from the existing networks.

What are the benefits of tokenizing advertising slots compared to traditional schemes?

Tokens are not subject to delays and fraud on the platform, which means everyone involved will be paid according to their merits, functions, reputation and activities. There will be no risks of not getting paid or having ramped up traffic. Everything will be based on token rewards and that will be the main motivation for efficient operations on the part of all participants. The reputation system and AI allow us to predict the proceeds from each particular ad slot. Tokenization is a specific form of prepayment for the publishers to get their tokens earlier than the actual ad placement takes place and thus optimize their cash-flow.

It is stated that data will be stored on the blockchain. What reason is there to believe that the Ethereum blockchain is able to process the amount of information desired?

The Ethereum is supporting much more information right now than it ever did. We are in b2b business and amount of transactions here is comparatively low. While Ethereum has limitations for consumer application, it perfectly suits the b2b needs in terms of expected capacity and speed of transactions. We are planning annual reviews and in case there will appear other solution, superior to Ethereum by all required parameters we shall certainly consider a switch.

How were the values for the soft cap and hard cap derived? Was it arbitrary? Specify in quantitative terms, if possible.

We have done considerable work prior to announcing our caps, as we analyzed all of our projected costs and expenses related to platform development, data buying, salaries and other factors. Soft cap number is related to product development costs and minimal business development activity, hard cap includes purchase of data and much faster roll out of the product and business development. For obvious reasons, we cannot discuss such information publicly in more detail.

Who are the Ubex's largest competitors (both blockchain and non-blockchain focused organizations) and how does the platform compare?

We do not see much competition yet, as our platform combines more functions than all of the competitors combined. And we also have a functional product prototype. We offer not only a convenient exchange platform, but also incentives for its participants to remain on the platform and earn more by helping it grow and develop. That is one of our greatest advantages. Certainly other players exist in the AdTech space, but all of them are focused on other segments or other optimizations. We do not exclude the future partnerships with services that extend the services provided by us to new customer segment or new market.

Use this code to share the ratings on your website