UChain

The Next Generation Distributed Smart Network Blockchain for the Sharing Economy

About UChain

UChain is an a platform the facilitates the development of dApps that utilize a sharing-based economy. The platform will use a proprietary credit rating system and aims to develop a decentralized exchange. UCN tokens will be used as the base currency within the ecosystem, which will also support the development of URC-1 standard tokens that enable subsidiary sharing economies. UCN tokens can also be staked in order to receive UCP, which provide voting rights.

2.7

Curved Score

2.7

Overall Score

Curved ScoreActual Score
UChain
10 Jul10 Aug
$0
$29,900,000
Visit Website
Token Economics Product

Documentation

2.5
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.

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
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.

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)?

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

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document begins with a discussion of the difficulties with the current state of the sharing economy ecosystem: excessive transaction costs, requirement of trust, and data security. There is a lack of discussion regarding direct competitors. The technical content is presented thoroughly, primarily because most of the content is not unique to the project. The business-related content focuses on discussing the token economy as opposed to the business development plans of the organization. Publicly available GitHub repositories that show the progress of the platform are not included.

Readability: The document contains technical details that are not unique to the platform. It seems as though some technical details are included in the whitepaper for the sake of appearing comprehensive and highly technical (secp256k1).

Transparency: The GitHub page for the platform is not publicly available and the current stage of technical development is not discussed in the whitepaper in thorough detail. As a result, the current stage of technical development is uncertain. Details regarding the level of funding (if any) UChain has received thus far are absent from the whitepaper. There is a lack of discussion regarding the challenges that the organization faces or will face in the future (technical development, competitors, etc.).

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Beyond discussing the token economics of the ecosystem and listing partnerships, there is little content that addresses the business aspects of the platform, specifically with respect to the development plan (revenue structure, marketing strategies, monetary projections, etc). Token economics is briefly discussed. The value proposition of UCN (earn/spend mechanisms) is presented, however specific details such as fee structure are not included. It is stated that UCN can be staked in order to receive UCP, but the voting mechanism is not effectively discussed.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The platform will use the Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm (RPCA) to reach consensus which gives a transaction rate of approximately 1000 TPS (transactions per second). It is stated that various protocols were considered (POW, POS, DPOS, and DBFT), but RCPA was considered due to its “transaction speed, aligning with various scenario needs in the sharing economy”. The evaluation of the different consensus protocols and the justification for RCPA is quite weak.
The technical discussion of the platform is segregated into four components: the core blockchain later, the API/SDK layer, the service layer, and the application layer. The sequence of events in which consensus is achieved is discussed fairly thoroughly and in layman terms. A lot of content regarding secp256k1 (elliptic curve used in Bitcoin) is taken directly from a Bitcoin Wiki article. Other technical aspects of the platform (API/SDK, service layer, application layer) are discussed coherently but primarily discusses desired features of the platform as opposed to presenting informative content regarding implementation of the technology.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a disclaimer towards the end of the whitepaper which spans approximately one and a half pages. Residents from the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America are not permitted to participate at any point during the token sale. It is not evident whether the organization is currently working with reputable law firms or have individuals that have an extensive background in law.

Documentation Market

Product

2.2
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).

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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.

Product

Differentiation: UChain differentiates itself from other sharing economy based blockchain projects such as Origin Protocol by aiming to develop their own blockchain. The platform will use a credit rating system (credit passport), UIP, which contains the private key for the individual as well as identification details provided through user authentication (KYC). The platform will allow for the creation of URC-1 standard tokens.

Readiness: Based on publicly available content, the level of development towards the platform is low. A GitHub page is not available and the UChain website does not contain a demonstration of any aspect of the platform. Proof-of-concepts are also absent.

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

Q1 2017
– Investigate problems in the current sharing economy model
Q2-Q4 2017
– UChain team formed and whitepaper drafted
Q1 2018
– Technical feasibility examined
– Final whitepaper made available and website put online
Q2 2018
– Public pre-sale and crowdsale
– Token distribution and UCN made transferable
Q3 2018
– Development of the wallet and blockchain explorer
– Testnet made available
Q4 2018
– UChain Mainnet made available
– Enterprise Open Platform released
Q2-Q4 2018
– Gain partnerships
– Grow platform into a “sharing economy 2.0”
Q1 2019
– User credit passport system released
– U-Bicycle dApp migrated and launched on UChain
2019+
– P2P transaction platform made available
– Upgrades and developments to enable further scalability and accommodate for any sharing company that would like to use the ecosystem

Some developments of the platform proposed in the whitepaper are not reflected in the roadmap. For example, it is stated that the organization plans to develop a decentralized exchange, yet the milestone is not presented in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, there are not any notable milestones that the organization has achieved based on the roadmap. Development of the platform has been primarily conceptual. The organization plans to develop their own blockchain, wallet, blockchain explorer, and decentralized exchange. It is quite evident that the organization has critical obstacles ahead.

Feasiblity: The ability to transfer UCN tokens before the development of a wallet and blockchain explorer is strange. The release of the Testnet in Q3 2018 is fairly ambitious considering that the organization has yet to release concrete information regarding the technical development of the platform.

Blockchain Innovation: Most of the highly technical specifics included in the whitepaper are simply a reiteration of the technical specifications of the Bitcoin infrastructure. Entire sections that are taken directly from Bitcoin Wiki pages. It is evident that the project presents significant level of innovation with respect to blockchain technology.

Product Company and Team

Market

3.5
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...

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.

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

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

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform is for the mass market. Users benefit from the development of the platform by having cheaper access to services and utilities, whereas developers and businesses are able to leverage the platform in order to develop a dApp that can reach users of the platform.

Market Penetration Potential: Organizations that utilize a sharing-based business model such as Uber and Airbnb are relatively new. As a result the likelihood of a competing solution taking marketshare is considerable. Additionally, by reducing service fees, the savings can potentially be passed on to the users, creating an incentive for users to switch platforms.

Direct Competition: A notable blockchain-based competitor of the platform is Origin Protocol, which also aims to develop decentralized marketplaces that focus on the sharing economy. There are also a multitude of blockchain-focused projects that aim to create a sharing economy in various niche sectors, but the number of projects that are attempting to build a platform in which multiple ecosystems can thrive are much less.

Solution Advantage: Instead of developing a particular service/business that utilized a sharing-based business model, UChain aims to become a platform that will enable multiple businesses and projects to be built on top of the UChain infrastructure. The platform will allow for the development of URC-1 tokens along with a wallet and a decentralized exchange.

Blockchain Disruption: Sharing economies such as Uber and Airbnb show that the business model can be successful if executed correctly. In the whitepaper, the drawbacks of current solutions for sharing-based economies is discussed: much of applications of sharing economies are still very much centralized. UChain aims to develop a platform that focuses to progressing the development of sharing economies in a manner that is more decentralized. The introduction of blockchain technology is primarily for the purposes of creating/distributing cryptocurrency (although vague assertions of data security are also discussed). The use of blockchain technology in this sector has the most impact with cost. It is stated that “Uber’s key profit comes from commissions with the rate starting at 20%”. Thus if the platform is able to provide a service with competitive pricing, than there is potential for disruption in various sharing economy platforms.

Long-Term Vision: UChain aims to become a platform that allows for the development of various sharing economies through dApps. The organization positions the platform as an ecosystem that accommodates the development of various sharing companies/services.

Market Token Economics

Company and Team

2.8
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).

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
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..."]).

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

3.0
N/A
3 - A few SMB's; may include founder or advisor related ventures but shows ability to expand beyond.

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: UChain has been in development since 2017, where most of the team members were sourced from U-Bicycle, a subsidiary of U.B Group Holding, a Internet organization that owns a multiple sharing based companies with over 30 million monthly active users. U.B Group Holding has successfully undergone four rounds of raising (specific details are not disclosed). It is unclear whether UChain as an organization has received direct investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 8 core team members presented on the UChain website, along with 12 advisors. Nearly all individuals on the UChain team are concurrently involved with U-Bicycle. As a result, overall commitment to the UChain project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All core team members include links to their LinkedIn profiles. All but one individual (the CTO) show their affiliation with UChain. The level of detail provided with regards to job responsibilities for LinkedIn profiles varies considerably.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most team members of UChain are employees of U-Bicycle. The CEO was part of the founding team of DianPing.com, which serves 320 million active customers. The CSO was a leading member of the creation of notable enterprise software solutions such as Office 2007, SharePoint 2007, Lync and Dynamics CRM 4.0 projects. The plans of the organization is to develop their own blockchain, however it is not evident that any of the team members have had extensive blockchain development experience.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a lack of individuals that have had experience working on blockchain-focused projects. It is stated that the CPO is a specialist in IoT Blockchain technology, however it is not evident that the individual’s professional experience aligns with this statement. Otherwise, there are individuals on the team that have experience with business operations and business development. There are no team members presented that have a role which is focused on regulatory compliance.

Strategic Partnerships: UChain is affiliated with U.B Group Holding, a company registered in the Cayman Islands and currently owns multiple companies that are engaged with a sharing based economy. One of these companies is U-Bicycle, where it’s employees make up most of the UChain team. In addition to U-Bicycle, U.B Group Holding also owns X-Bike, LocalKing, GrabCycle, U-Park, and U-Car. Various organizational partners are listed (ALIPAY, Grab, TransLink, China Unicom, DianPing, and the World Blockchain Organization) but the involvement of these organizations is unclear.

Company and Team Documentation

Token Economics

2.7
Token Economics
Value Proposition of Token

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

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

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

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

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

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: UCN tokens are the base currency used in the UChain ecosystem. UCN tokens can also be staked in exchange for UCP tokens, which are used voting purposes and are neither exchangeable nor tradable. Use cases of the tokens are presented as follows:

– UCN is circulated in all DApps built on top of UChain as payment for all kinds of transactions
– UCN can be used as vouchers for the purchase of assets from suppliers (sharing bicycles, smart devices, etc.)
– Users will be rewarded with UCN if they decide to contribute their data to the development of the ecosystem
– UCN can be used for payment of API services provided by UChain
– UCN will be rewarded to the community contributors such as third-party developers and community operators
– UCN can be earned by improving your community activity such as on-boarding more users and creating valuable content
– All fees will be denominated in UCN such as transaction fee from Sharing services and DEX
– UCN can also be paid for advertisements deliver through the UChain advertising system

Token Economy: Details of the token economics of the platform are discussed with low levels of detail. The fee structure of the platform and the decentralized exchange are not discussed thoroughly. In addition, the staking reward mechanism is also not described. Reward mechanisms are discussed without specific details.

System Decentralization (besides token): UCP token holders are granted voting privileges. However, the governance structure is not specifically outlined. With regards to data storage, it is stated that the organization plans to “store and extract data through a distributed storage scheme with a private key”. Specific details are lacking.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The UCN token supply is unspecified and the organization intends to raise 42,000 ETH for the token sale (12,000 ETH for the crowdsale).

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
35% – Research and development
30% – Marketing and growth
30% – Global operations and expansion
5% – Advisory

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
40% – Token sale
35% – Ecosystem
15% – Team
10% – Company reserve

It is stated in the FAQ section of the website that tokens allocated to the team will have “three years vesting with a one year cliff”.

Documentation

Comprehensiveness: The document begins with a discussion of the difficulties with the current state of the sharing economy ecosystem: excessive transaction costs, requirement of trust, and data security. There is a lack of discussion regarding direct competitors. The technical content is presented thoroughly, primarily because most of the content is not unique to the project. The business-related content focuses on discussing the token economy as opposed to the business development plans of the organization. Publicly available GitHub repositories that show the progress of the platform are not included.

Readability: The document contains technical details that are not unique to the platform. It seems as though some technical details are included in the whitepaper for the sake of appearing comprehensive and highly technical (secp256k1).

Transparency: The GitHub page for the platform is not publicly available and the current stage of technical development is not discussed in the whitepaper in thorough detail. As a result, the current stage of technical development is uncertain. Details regarding the level of funding (if any) UChain has received thus far are absent from the whitepaper. There is a lack of discussion regarding the challenges that the organization faces or will face in the future (technical development, competitors, etc.).

Presentation of Business Plan and Token Model: Beyond discussing the token economics of the ecosystem and listing partnerships, there is little content that addresses the business aspects of the platform, specifically with respect to the development plan (revenue structure, marketing strategies, monetary projections, etc). Token economics is briefly discussed. The value proposition of UCN (earn/spend mechanisms) is presented, however specific details such as fee structure are not included. It is stated that UCN can be staked in order to receive UCP, but the voting mechanism is not effectively discussed.

Presentation of Platform Technology and Use of Blockchain: The platform will use the Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm (RPCA) to reach consensus which gives a transaction rate of approximately 1000 TPS (transactions per second). It is stated that various protocols were considered (POW, POS, DPOS, and DBFT), but RCPA was considered due to its “transaction speed, aligning with various scenario needs in the sharing economy”. The evaluation of the different consensus protocols and the justification for RCPA is quite weak.
The technical discussion of the platform is segregated into four components: the core blockchain later, the API/SDK layer, the service layer, and the application layer. The sequence of events in which consensus is achieved is discussed fairly thoroughly and in layman terms. A lot of content regarding secp256k1 (elliptic curve used in Bitcoin) is taken directly from a Bitcoin Wiki article. Other technical aspects of the platform (API/SDK, service layer, application layer) are discussed coherently but primarily discusses desired features of the platform as opposed to presenting informative content regarding implementation of the technology.

Legal Review and Risk Assessment: There is a disclaimer towards the end of the whitepaper which spans approximately one and a half pages. Residents from the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America are not permitted to participate at any point during the token sale. It is not evident whether the organization is currently working with reputable law firms or have individuals that have an extensive background in law.

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.

3.0
N/A
3 - May take some time to get through, or be somewhat long or complicated, but gets the point across.
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.

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)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional (e.g., only a short disclaimer).
Documentation Score:
2.5

Product

Differentiation: UChain differentiates itself from other sharing economy based blockchain projects such as Origin Protocol by aiming to develop their own blockchain. The platform will use a credit rating system (credit passport), UIP, which contains the private key for the individual as well as identification details provided through user authentication (KYC). The platform will allow for the creation of URC-1 standard tokens.

Readiness: Based on publicly available content, the level of development towards the platform is low. A GitHub page is not available and the UChain website does not contain a demonstration of any aspect of the platform. Proof-of-concepts are also absent.

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

Q1 2017
– Investigate problems in the current sharing economy model
Q2-Q4 2017
– UChain team formed and whitepaper drafted
Q1 2018
– Technical feasibility examined
– Final whitepaper made available and website put online
Q2 2018
– Public pre-sale and crowdsale
– Token distribution and UCN made transferable
Q3 2018
– Development of the wallet and blockchain explorer
– Testnet made available
Q4 2018
– UChain Mainnet made available
– Enterprise Open Platform released
Q2-Q4 2018
– Gain partnerships
– Grow platform into a “sharing economy 2.0”
Q1 2019
– User credit passport system released
– U-Bicycle dApp migrated and launched on UChain
2019+
– P2P transaction platform made available
– Upgrades and developments to enable further scalability and accommodate for any sharing company that would like to use the ecosystem

Some developments of the platform proposed in the whitepaper are not reflected in the roadmap. For example, it is stated that the organization plans to develop a decentralized exchange, yet the milestone is not presented in the roadmap.

Current Position within Roadmap: Thus far, there are not any notable milestones that the organization has achieved based on the roadmap. Development of the platform has been primarily conceptual. The organization plans to develop their own blockchain, wallet, blockchain explorer, and decentralized exchange. It is quite evident that the organization has critical obstacles ahead.

Feasiblity: The ability to transfer UCN tokens before the development of a wallet and blockchain explorer is strange. The release of the Testnet in Q3 2018 is fairly ambitious considering that the organization has yet to release concrete information regarding the technical development of the platform.

Blockchain Innovation: Most of the highly technical specifics included in the whitepaper are simply a reiteration of the technical specifications of the Bitcoin infrastructure. Entire sections that are taken directly from Bitcoin Wiki pages. It is evident that the project presents significant level of innovation with respect to blockchain technology.

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).

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)?

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?

2.0
N/A
2 - Limited added value, some additional smart contract functionality.
Product Score:
2.2

Market

Target User Base: The target user base for the platform is for the mass market. Users benefit from the development of the platform by having cheaper access to services and utilities, whereas developers and businesses are able to leverage the platform in order to develop a dApp that can reach users of the platform.

Market Penetration Potential: Organizations that utilize a sharing-based business model such as Uber and Airbnb are relatively new. As a result the likelihood of a competing solution taking marketshare is considerable. Additionally, by reducing service fees, the savings can potentially be passed on to the users, creating an incentive for users to switch platforms.

Direct Competition: A notable blockchain-based competitor of the platform is Origin Protocol, which also aims to develop decentralized marketplaces that focus on the sharing economy. There are also a multitude of blockchain-focused projects that aim to create a sharing economy in various niche sectors, but the number of projects that are attempting to build a platform in which multiple ecosystems can thrive are much less.

Solution Advantage: Instead of developing a particular service/business that utilized a sharing-based business model, UChain aims to become a platform that will enable multiple businesses and projects to be built on top of the UChain infrastructure. The platform will allow for the development of URC-1 tokens along with a wallet and a decentralized exchange.

Blockchain Disruption: Sharing economies such as Uber and Airbnb show that the business model can be successful if executed correctly. In the whitepaper, the drawbacks of current solutions for sharing-based economies is discussed: much of applications of sharing economies are still very much centralized. UChain aims to develop a platform that focuses to progressing the development of sharing economies in a manner that is more decentralized. The introduction of blockchain technology is primarily for the purposes of creating/distributing cryptocurrency (although vague assertions of data security are also discussed). The use of blockchain technology in this sector has the most impact with cost. It is stated that “Uber’s key profit comes from commissions with the rate starting at 20%”. Thus if the platform is able to provide a service with competitive pricing, than there is potential for disruption in various sharing economy platforms.

Long-Term Vision: UChain aims to become a platform that allows for the development of various sharing economies through dApps. The organization positions the platform as an ecosystem that accommodates the development of various sharing companies/services.

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...

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.

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

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

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?

3.0
N/A
3 - Moderate.
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.)

4.0
N/A
4 - Long term market dominance / leadership. Development of the sector's flagship solution.
Market Score:
3.5

Company and Team

Company Stage and Foundation: UChain has been in development since 2017, where most of the team members were sourced from U-Bicycle, a subsidiary of U.B Group Holding, a Internet organization that owns a multiple sharing based companies with over 30 million monthly active users. U.B Group Holding has successfully undergone four rounds of raising (specific details are not disclosed). It is unclear whether UChain as an organization has received direct investment funding.

Team Assembly and Commitment: There are 8 core team members presented on the UChain website, along with 12 advisors. Nearly all individuals on the UChain team are concurrently involved with U-Bicycle. As a result, overall commitment to the UChain project is uncertain.

Background of Lead/Core Team Members: All core team members include links to their LinkedIn profiles. All but one individual (the CTO) show their affiliation with UChain. The level of detail provided with regards to job responsibilities for LinkedIn profiles varies considerably.

Relevance of Team’s Previous Experience and Skill Set: Most team members of UChain are employees of U-Bicycle. The CEO was part of the founding team of DianPing.com, which serves 320 million active customers. The CSO was a leading member of the creation of notable enterprise software solutions such as Office 2007, SharePoint 2007, Lync and Dynamics CRM 4.0 projects. The plans of the organization is to develop their own blockchain, however it is not evident that any of the team members have had extensive blockchain development experience.

Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain): There is a lack of individuals that have had experience working on blockchain-focused projects. It is stated that the CPO is a specialist in IoT Blockchain technology, however it is not evident that the individual’s professional experience aligns with this statement. Otherwise, there are individuals on the team that have experience with business operations and business development. There are no team members presented that have a role which is focused on regulatory compliance.

Strategic Partnerships: UChain is affiliated with U.B Group Holding, a company registered in the Cayman Islands and currently owns multiple companies that are engaged with a sharing based economy. One of these companies is U-Bicycle, where it’s employees make up most of the UChain team. In addition to U-Bicycle, U.B Group Holding also owns X-Bike, LocalKing, GrabCycle, U-Park, and U-Car. Various organizational partners are listed (ALIPAY, Grab, TransLink, China Unicom, DianPing, and the World Blockchain Organization) but the involvement of these organizations 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).

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history (at least one notable previous investment round).
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..."]).

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.

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Strategic Partnerships

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

3.0
N/A
3 - A few SMB's; may include founder or advisor related ventures but shows ability to expand beyond.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Economics

Value Proposition of Token: UCN tokens are the base currency used in the UChain ecosystem. UCN tokens can also be staked in exchange for UCP tokens, which are used voting purposes and are neither exchangeable nor tradable. Use cases of the tokens are presented as follows:

– UCN is circulated in all DApps built on top of UChain as payment for all kinds of transactions
– UCN can be used as vouchers for the purchase of assets from suppliers (sharing bicycles, smart devices, etc.)
– Users will be rewarded with UCN if they decide to contribute their data to the development of the ecosystem
– UCN can be used for payment of API services provided by UChain
– UCN will be rewarded to the community contributors such as third-party developers and community operators
– UCN can be earned by improving your community activity such as on-boarding more users and creating valuable content
– All fees will be denominated in UCN such as transaction fee from Sharing services and DEX
– UCN can also be paid for advertisements deliver through the UChain advertising system

Token Economy: Details of the token economics of the platform are discussed with low levels of detail. The fee structure of the platform and the decentralized exchange are not discussed thoroughly. In addition, the staking reward mechanism is also not described. Reward mechanisms are discussed without specific details.

System Decentralization (besides token): UCP token holders are granted voting privileges. However, the governance structure is not specifically outlined. With regards to data storage, it is stated that the organization plans to “store and extract data through a distributed storage scheme with a private key”. Specific details are lacking.

Fundraising Goals (Min/Max Raise Amounts): The UCN token supply is unspecified and the organization intends to raise 42,000 ETH for the token sale (12,000 ETH for the crowdsale).

Use of Proceeds (Fund Allocation): The use of proceeds is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
35% – Research and development
30% – Marketing and growth
30% – Global operations and expansion
5% – Advisory

Token Allocation: The token allocation is presented in the whitepaper as follows:
40% – Token sale
35% – Ecosystem
15% – Team
10% – Company reserve

It is stated in the FAQ section of the website that tokens allocated to the team will have “three years vesting with a one year cliff”.

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.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Token Economics Score:
2.7
Visit Website

Use this code to share the ratings on your website

Trending & Featured ICOs

dona Partners Limited
A new donation platform which uses blockchain to make don...
72 days left
8 May 31 Oct
Scienceroot
Scienceroot aims to improve the scientific and research c...
72 days left
15 Jul 15 Aug
Ubex
2.4
Artificial Intelligence in Advertising
72 days left
21 May 13 Aug
Tip Blockchain
1.9
Short usernames as smart addresses, search and find other...
72 days left
13 Jul 17 Aug
Copyright © 2017 CryptoRated